Military Review

Drones didn't make tanks useless: American press on the war in Karabakh

110

The successful use of UAVs by the Azerbaijani army in the Karabakh conflict sparked lively discussions about the "obsolete era" tanks and armored vehicles as effective means of combat in modern warfare. But the American magazine Foreign Policy refutes this point of view.


The armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan attracted the attention of everyone who is interested in modern tactics of warfare. Since both sides are actively posting statements on the Internet about their successes on the battlefield and citing the number of destroyed enemy tanks and armored vehicles as confirmation, the question of the future of armored vehicles in modern battles has become the focus of attention.

Azerbaijan uses unmanned aerial vehicles with which it strikes Armenian armored vehicles. As a result, even many respected experts began to doubt the future of tanks. For example, the former commander of the Northern Army of the Indian Armed Forces, Lieutenant General D.S. Huda, claims: the era of large tank battles has passed, and there are more and more questions about the use of tanks in modern warfare.

Anti-tank mines are still effective


At first glance, when the massive use of drones begins, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles turn into death traps for crews. But Foreign Policy author Robert Bateman, himself a former US Army officer, thinks differently: the fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh region does not give any reason to talk about the "death" of a tank in modern warfare.

Success on the battlefield, Bateman emphasizes, is made up of three factors - preparation, terrain, and tactics. But the widely advertised statement about the superiority of UAVs over armored vehicles is, according to the American author, false. To establish an accurate picture of what is happening, one should believe not the reports of the press services of the Azerbaijani or Armenian military departments, but at least the video footage from the battlefield, since there are plenty of them on the Internet.

In the videos supplied by the press services of both armies, you can often see how many tanks and armored vehicles are destroyed not by UAVs, but by anti-tank mines or conventional ammunition. Of course, drones also cause damage to the enemy, but one should not assume that the destruction of armored vehicles occurs solely due to the use of modern unmanned aerial vehicle technologies.



Poor training of personnel as a reason for the destruction of armored vehicles


The videos presented by both the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides, Bateman writes, only testify to the fact that neither Baku nor Yerevan understands that the cost of weapons is only part of the cost of training people to use these weapons competently.

Neither side has realized that even the most high-tech tank is just scrap metal unless you have trained and disciplined specialists capable of operating such a tank.

- emphasizes Bateman.

The presence of a large number of modern tanks that look spectacular during festive events does not mean that the country will be able to use them correctly on the battlefield. For example, the not so long ago held army games "ARMi-2020" showed that the tank crews of the post-Soviet republics, especially the Central Asian ones, are significantly inferior to the Russian ones, and not because of the worst tanks, but because of less preparedness.

When we talk about training, we mean not only the quality of training for driver mechanics and crew commanders. We are talking about higher ranks, including those who directly command tank units and formations on the battlefield, and those who plan operations in the headquarters of the ground forces.


As Bateman notes, in many videos from Karabakh, tanks or other armored vehicles are grouped, they do not maneuver, and this, in turn, inevitably entails substantial losses.

It's also about the terrain, and the UAV shouldn't be overestimated.


In addition, Nagorno-Karabakh is not a convenient country for conducting tank battles. Such terrain requires a different approach to the conduct of hostilities, emphasis on other forces, but this does not mean that tanks will not be effective in other terrain. For example, in the jungles of Vietnam, tanks were also not effective, but they proved to be excellent in other conditions.

The Indian General Huda, whom we quoted above, compares, and quite rightly, the conditions of Karabakh and Kashmir. In Ladakh, Indian heavy tanks were also problematic to deploy. But the world does not consist of Kashmir and Karabakh. Although many "hot spots" of our time are in mountainous areas, there are more flat areas and tanks are still effective there.

Bateman concludes that the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh cannot testify to the "death" of armored vehicles - the drones did not make the tanks useless at all.

All that this war shows is two poorly trained armies, acting awkwardly, and the power of modern information technologies, which make it possible to quickly upload videos to the Internet,

- writes Bateman.

However, other conclusions can be drawn - the United States and its NATO allies underestimate the importance of military air defense. Drones are indeed a threat, but shooting down cheap drones is cheap too. Modern ground forces, even without air superiority, will be able to eliminate this threat. In any conflict, the force that has been invested not so much in the purchase of the latest "toys" as in the training of personnel will win.
Author:
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alien From
    Alien From 16 October 2020 11: 40 New
    -41
    The opinion of the mattress analyst is not interesting.
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 16 October 2020 11: 51 New
      19
      Quote: Alien From
      The opinion of the mattress analyst is not interesting.

      They always have a very good analysis, it is another matter that the conclusions can have a specific direction. The fact that the most modern technology in the hands of a savage is a piece of dung, I completely agree. Another thing is that it is precisely such failures that form the modern view of technology. For us this war will turn back a decrease in orders for tanks and other equipment, I bet.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 16 October 2020 12: 24 New
        +5
        Quote: APASUS
        For us, this war will result in a decrease in orders for tanks and other equipment, I bet.

        And an increase in orders for electronic warfare and short-range air defense, which never allowed a single drone to Khmeimim ... And you can also put on a jeep
        Aviation complex for countering attack missiles "President" (loose components). The complex includes cameras that detect incoming missiles and a laser jamming complex that blinds the optical homing heads of missiles (such as all sorts of "stingers" and "mistrals"). Cheap and cheerful. We take it, turn it upside down so that it looks not from the sky to the ground, but from the ground to the sky, and we get a complex for blinding video cameras of missiles and small RPVs. And no consumables (such as missiles and shells for air defense systems), it works around the clock, the number of "stocked" enemy means of attack is not limited. As a bonus, all newfangled anti-tank missiles - "Jevlins" and all kinds of "spikes"
        1. Airdefense
          Airdefense 16 October 2020 12: 39 New
          11
          And an increase in orders for electronic warfare and short-range air defense, which never allowed a single drone to Khmeimim ... And you can also put on a jeep

          Khmeimim did not attack modern Israeli or Turkish UAVs.

          Aviation complex for countering attack missiles "President" (loose components).

          Maybe, or it may turn out that outside of an echeloned air defense system, it is just as useless against UAVs as a single Pantsir.
      2. Interlocutor
        Interlocutor 16 October 2020 12: 50 New
        +1
        For us, this war will result in a decrease in orders for tanks and other equipment, I bet.

        Rather, active protection will be required.
    2. hrych
      hrych 16 October 2020 12: 03 New
      +1
      Well, how. Not only the most powerful, but also the most trained and experienced army. Experts, of course, do not say that this army is also preparing for a nuclear war, and then drones and all electronics are in the red. But it is precisely tanks that are the best protection against all factors of a nuclear explosion, an all-terrain vehicle and mobile artillery. In the Bekaa Valley 40 years ago, UAVs have proven themselves well. Only now, third countries have begun to apply these things. The USSR, on the other hand, analyzed the events of the Bekaa and made the correct conclusion ... more tanks, because it was going to wage a nuclear war. And let the third countries themselves think about how to lead the aboriginal showdown.
    3. x.andvlad
      x.andvlad 16 October 2020 12: 07 New
      +9
      The analyst is 100% right about the quality of personnel training at all levels. BUT even in this conclusion there is nothing fundamentally new. Such training must necessarily take into account the analysis and experience of all recent military operations in the world.
    4. Thrifty
      Thrifty 16 October 2020 12: 57 New
      +3
      Basically, the Yankees wrote everything right! Also, the lack of proper camouflage, and the air defense of "the day before yesterday" in Karabakh.
    5. halpat
      halpat 16 October 2020 13: 01 New
      -10
      Quote: Alien From
      former commander of the Northern Army of the Indian Armed Forces, Lieutenant General D.S. Hood claims: the era of large tank battles has passed, and there are more and more questions about the use of tanks in modern warfare.

      The whole world listens attentively and writes down the opinion of this undoubtedly greatest strategist and master of the use of tank forces of all times and peoples.
      The skulls of Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein wept in their graves with respect and affection before the wisdom of the Hindu tank guru.

      The world is waiting for the main revelation !!! - strategies for the massive use of war elephants, as well as the effectiveness of their use, depending on the feeding of bananas, as opposed to sugar cane and palm leaves.
  2. Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 16 October 2020 11: 41 New
    +9
    If the Armenians had the same "shells" in large numbers with trained crews, there would be no drones for a long time.
    1. MTN
      MTN 16 October 2020 11: 45 New
      -13
      Shells are not effective against drones. Only AVIATION with an air-to-air missile is effective against drones. And for aviation to be effective, it is necessary to clear the zone from air defense.
      The armor is effective, there is a multi-ramp air defense system.
      1. hrych
        hrych 16 October 2020 11: 57 New
        +9
        Quote: MTN
        Only AVIATION is effective against drones

        Big mistake.
        1. VO3A
          VO3A 16 October 2020 12: 31 New
          +2
          Modern methods must be used against drones in modern warfare ... But such methods are not used in our army, and it is also true that our army does not know how to wage a modern war ... And no excellent and necessary "shells" will help! What prevents the use in a defensive operation of portable stationary or air posts with a remote location of operators or their complete absence? But this requires modern combat information systems, in which these posts, along with other elements of these systems, are included as observation means (there are also UAVs) !!! We do not have such systems ... No one is working on the creation of such systems and staff structures, and, in general, the General Staff of the Armed Forces believes that we do not need them ... This is not air defense, this is something else ... Air defense or its elements too are (or may be) part of these combat information systems that allow modern combat operations ...
          1. hrych
            hrych 16 October 2020 12: 51 New
            -7
            Quote: VO3A
            And such methods are not used in our army, and it is also true that our army does not know how to wage a modern war ...

            Are you talking about Armenia? Khmeimim has already repelled the strikes of a thousand drones, all sorts of different laughing They are jammed by the electronic warfare system, i.e. deprives of control, but it is the Shell that finishes off. Now Armor is additionally supplied with small anti-drone missiles. And there is also a combat ... laser. We have information systems in sufficient quantity. There are also drones and loitering ammunition. All there is, do not worry. Here's how the Shell works with drones:
            1. Oquzyurd
              Oquzyurd 16 October 2020 13: 03 New
              +3
              You're already here? laughing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZSjF9ASvQQ
              1. VO3A
                VO3A 16 October 2020 13: 25 New
                -6
                I'm here !
                Solovyov talked about the pain of people, about anxiety, about danger, and no matter what kind of screensaver he used ... He did not read the summary ... But the quirky and zero boy decided to be promoted in the war, "to put Solovyov in his belt" ... Clever insignificance, and a bunch of gray inhabitants immediately fell for ... The herd ..
                1. Oquzyurd
                  Oquzyurd 16 October 2020 13: 38 New
                  +8
                  We know him not from this screen saver; we know for a long time and thoroughly that he has pain and care for the pain of other people, selectively, shamelessly.
                  1. VO3A
                    VO3A 16 October 2020 13: 43 New
                    0
                    And I don't defend him ... It's just that the trick in this situation does not work ... I stumbled a crafty autorish ... I did it myself effectively ... And not only him ...
              2. hrych
                hrych 16 October 2020 13: 39 New
                -3
                Aren't you at the front yet?
                1. Oquzyurd
                  Oquzyurd 16 October 2020 13: 52 New
                  +4
                  Tell us about the video you put in and where did you find these unique footage smile
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 16 October 2020 13: 59 New
                    -3
                    This is a cartoon for kids like you wassat
            2. VO3A
              VO3A 16 October 2020 13: 04 New
              +1
              The grandmother is on the bench, she tells other grandmothers what she saw and heard on TV ... She will not even be able to reach the level of a political informer in a pioneer unit ...
              But not funny:
              With little blood, on foreign territory, the Red Army is the strongest ..., and then the Finnish ... and 41 years old ... But everything was for success and now is, only I don't want such a result ...
              1. hrych
                hrych 16 October 2020 13: 38 New
                -1
                What are you talking about? Better than 45, remember and how the Kwantung people were smeared. Zircon tested, Dagger and Vanguard in service. Boreas and Ash trees are under construction. More than a hundred Yars and half a hundred Clubs. Not enough for you? More than 149 military satellites, tracking, guidance, positioning and communication. Grandma sayin? Yes, you are far from your grandmother, you have mastered the ABC book wassat
                1. VO3A
                  VO3A 16 October 2020 13: 51 New
                  0
                  Zircon tested, Dagger and Vanguard in service. Boreas and Ash trees are under construction. More than a hundred Yars and half a hundred Clubs.

                  This is in Syria, Libya, the LDNR, in Armenia, and on all our borders it is impossible to use to achieve success ... The situation is not controlled, there is no information, there is no data for forecasting, there are no proactive actions .. Satellites for advertising. We catch on live bait ... On the bench ...
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 16 October 2020 13: 56 New
                    -2
                    And that Ukrainian boilers are not enough for you? Or was Syria 70% cleared and the shelf seized, too little? Do you have any childhood trauma associated with the bench? wassat
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. hrych
                        hrych 16 October 2020 14: 10 New
                        -2
                        Quote: VO3A
                        I don't graze cows with you.

                        And with whom did you pass? wassat
                      2. VO3A
                        VO3A 16 October 2020 14: 11 New
                        +1
                        And that has a short hair and it is so clear !!! Corporal?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. VO3A
                        VO3A 16 October 2020 14: 14 New
                        0
                        I have military slang, and some have collective farm slang ...
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. VO3A
                        VO3A 16 October 2020 14: 18 New
                        0
                        Favorite question of the political officer ... Only collective farmers understand military issues!
                      7. The comment was deleted.
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 16 October 2020 14: 28 New
      +1
      human blood is not water - there will never be an easy war .. and there never was
  • iouris
    iouris 16 October 2020 13: 21 New
    -1
    The video shows that the defeat is achieved almost at one short distance, and at a long distance the probability of defeat is negligible. When attacking a large number of drones, this method of destruction will fail. The "shell" works, but is ineffective.
    1. hrych
      hrych 16 October 2020 13: 33 New
      0
      And, like you will attack, and we will defend? No, we will smudge your control centers from a radius, more than the radius of the drone. We will liquidate your airfields and your deceitful prezik.
      The shell only finishes here. Communication has been eliminated by electronic warfare systems. Theoretically, you can not finish off, they themselves will fly away into milk, but there may be a GOS and without telecontrol to visit. Therefore, it is better to shoot.
      1. iouris
        iouris 17 October 2020 10: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: hrych
        we will cover your control centers

        The idea is obviously correct, but as the saying goes: "I am ide, I am ide? Am I ide?" The drones don't seem to be out of control anymore. I mean, you can shoot drones only from close range, i.e. caliber can be reduced, and the number of fire weapons can be increased.
  • Maverick1812
    Maverick1812 16 October 2020 13: 37 New
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHoQJqJ0xHo&feature=youtu.be
    1. hrych
      hrych 16 October 2020 13: 43 New
      -4
      Suitable for demonstration wassat The Americans SDI drew and nothing rolled wassat So I slipped bullshit into these evil commentators wassat Almost rolled
  • Mik13
    Mik13 16 October 2020 13: 48 New
    +4
    Quote: hrych
    Here's how the Shell works with drones:

    Well, you have to watch what to post ... This is footage from a computer game. Besides, it doesn't smell of any kind of shell.
    1. hrych
      hrych 16 October 2020 13: 58 New
      -7
      Quote: Mik13
      These are shots from a computer game.

      Yes i know wassat I wanted to troll the "drone experts" who have recently registered and have not yet seen wassat
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 16 October 2020 19: 23 New
    +1
    This is a computer toy laughing
  • Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 17 October 2020 11: 57 New
    +2
    Quote: hrych
    Khmeimim has already repelled the strikes of a thousand drones, all sorts of different

    Cheap, consumer-made drones do not have jam-resistant communication channels.
    1. hrych
      hrych 17 October 2020 12: 35 New
      -1
      Quote: Pilat2009
      anti-jamming communication channels

      Electronic warfare should jam any communication channels or its price. Now telephony, television and the Internet are all digital, coded and noise-free communication channels.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 17 October 2020 17: 06 New
        0
        Quote: hrych
        any communication channels or a penny her price

        Not worth the price of a connection that doesn't work
        1. hrych
          hrych 17 October 2020 18: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Pilat2009
          Not worth the price of a connection that doesn't work

          Naturally. The Norwegians accused us of disrupting navigation and the death of the frigate. Here is aerobatics of electronic warfare, as well as control interceptions. In Syria, the electronic warfare repulsed a massive attack of Tomahawks and others. Krasukha directed, so as not to interfere with his own, disrupts the communication and operation of the enemy's radar. The range of the "Krasukha-4" complex is estimated at 150-300 kilometers. It is from Stepanokert that all of Azerbaijan can be covered.
  • Bryanskiy_Volk
    Bryanskiy_Volk 17 October 2020 19: 45 New
    0
    In your attached video, besides the fact that Phalanx shoots, besides, this is not real shooting, but a computer game hi
  • List
    List 17 October 2020 21: 10 New
    0
    This is a video from the game Arma 3
  • venik
    venik 16 October 2020 13: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: hrych
    Quote: MTN
    Only AVIATION is effective against drones

    Big mistake.

    ========
    This is not just a "delusion" - that's all vice versa (all the way around) - Aviation is especially against small drones at all ineffective! The best way to deal with "annoying little things" is electronic warfare. With those who are a little more - electronic warfare + air defense missile systems MD + MZA, and aviation is good mainly against "heavyweight" .... Here - yes!
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 16 October 2020 19: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: hrych
    Quote: MTN
    Only AVIATION is effective against drones

    Big mistake.

    At low altitudes, the Israelis use helicopters against UAVs. The fighters were not effective. Patriots - after "podgamaeivaniya" also showed their effectiveness - the second time, by the way hi
    1. hrych
      hrych 17 October 2020 08: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: Krasnodar
      Israelis use helicopters against UAVs

      It's a matter of reaction time, until you reach the helicopter, until you start, until you take off ... a drone, even a slow-moving one, will do it. And someone should inform the helicopter about the raid, some kind of radar or OLS. Of course, we need constant readiness systems and anti-drone missiles. Develop laser and amy cannons. But tele-guidance and radio control must violate electronic warfare.
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 17 October 2020 09: 40 New
        +1
        With the combat readiness of the Air Force and all-altitude radars, the Israelis have all the norms - the latter allows the meager size of the country
        But, in principle, interceptor drones of various types are now being prepared.
        At what stage of development it is not clear
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 17 October 2020 11: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: hrych
        until you reach the helicopter, until you start, until you take off

        Duty link? No, we don't know
        1. hrych
          hrych 17 October 2020 12: 40 New
          0
          So what? What do you know there? Capsule?
  • ashot1973
    ashot1973 16 October 2020 22: 54 New
    0
    I completely agree! good
  • lucul
    lucul 16 October 2020 12: 02 New
    +3
    Shells are not effective against drones. Only AVIATION with an air-to-air missile is effective against drones

    Yes Yes Yes .......))))
  • Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 16 October 2020 12: 52 New
    +2
    Yes, for each drone raise su 35 laughing , but about the air defense echeloned by itself.
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 16 October 2020 11: 50 New
    15
    Quote: Incvizitor
    If the Armenians had the same "shells" in large numbers with trained crews, there would be no drones for a long time.

    And a couple of machine guns from Kutuzov during Borodino? And the T-34 at the Kulikovo field? And what about the AKM at Pushkin's on the Black River?
  • Airdefense
    Airdefense 16 October 2020 12: 42 New
    +3
    Yes and no in Idlib, after the Buki pulled up, the drones began to fall. The Shells alone may not be enough in the export version, it needs to be placed too close to the front line.
  • Nasdaq
    Nasdaq 16 October 2020 12: 58 New
    +4
    Armenia has both shells and beeches. But they are not located in Karabakh. This is not an ATGM, you cannot hide these SAMs. There, all the air defense rested on anti-tank guided missiles and old air defense systems. Purely legally, this is the territory of Azerbaijan, and it is not worthwhile to place new equipment in the open. Negotiations and all that. And so this armament was squeezed out by the self-defense forces of the "type" back in the 90s. Everyone understands everything and no one cares.
  • Rudkovsky
    Rudkovsky 16 October 2020 11: 46 New
    -1
    << For example, not so long ago held army games "ARMi-2020" showed >>

    They showed that even at the training ground, trained crews could not hit a stationary target and the rockets flew into milk amid the joyful shouts of the host "there is a hit."


    Well, the narrative "It's not our technology that is to blame, but the crooked Syrians / Egyptians / Arabs / Armenians, etc." is a propaganda chewing gum for the stupidest. This is how one epic fail can be explained, but if the phenomenon is repeated over and over again, then the reason is obvious not so simple.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 11: 57 New
      -4
      Quote: Rudkovsky
      This is how one epic fail can be explained, but if the phenomenon is repeated over and over again, then the reason is obvious not so simple.

      Syria, Libya, Karabakh as a blueprint. Fighters block the work of manned aircraft, UAVs begin to work, gradually knocking out ground air defense, then switching to armored vehicles, then to infantry clusters. At the same time, fighters do not enter the battle, realizing that if they start a fight against drones, they will be put under enemy fighters and will be destroyed.
      Ground-based air defenses cannot successfully fight without aviation.
    2. lucul
      lucul 16 October 2020 12: 03 New
      +4
      They showed that even at the training ground, trained crews could not hit a stationary target and the rockets flew into milk amid the joyful shouts of the host "there is a hit."

      Again, all Haifa drones flew to defend)))
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 16 October 2020 11: 54 New
    +4
    50 to 50. Something right, something wrong.
    1) Drones are relatively cheap. In theory, there will be a lot of them. What some countries are already demonstrating.
    2) Drones are not that easy to shoot down. There were videos of a group of 10 people shooting at controlled drones at a shooting range while flying around them. Very difficult to get into. If uncontrollable, put a maneuver in the program.
    3) Electronic warfare will help until you get used to it. If he has captured the target, electronic warfare may no longer help.

    In the video, in reality, there is usually no opposition. Often the cars are simply abandoned.
  • taiga2018
    taiga2018 16 October 2020 12: 06 New
    +5
    They did not, but the military should draw conclusions and say thanks to the Armenians and Azerbaijanis, that at the cost of their blood and their mistakes they teach others ...
  • Lesorub
    Lesorub 16 October 2020 12: 07 New
    +4
    In any conflict, the force that has been invested not so much in the purchase of the latest "toys" as in the training of personnel will win.

    And then the author "suffered"! (those who invested in the purchase of expensive "toys" also invest in drug training)
    Drones are indeed a threat, but shooting down cheap drones is cheap too

    It remains only for the Armenians to suggest how to do it cheaply!
    At least the last hostilities showed that the tanks needed KAZ (except for the perimeter + with the cover of the upper hemisphere)
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 12: 10 New
    0
    Drones are indeed a threat, but shooting down cheap drones is cheap too.

    There is only one known successful target against penny drones, the Khmeimim base.

    Joint air defense system consisting of:
    • ZRPK short-range "Pantsir-S1";
    • Osa-AKM short-range air defense system;
    • S-125 "Pechora-2M";
    • Buk-M2E medium-range air defense system;
    • Long-range air defense system S-200VE "Vega";
    • S-400 "Triumph".
    • S-300FM "Fort-M" (missile cruisers "Moskva" and "Varyag" with combat service areas in the coastal waters of the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea).
    • Electronic warfare "Krasukha-4".

    They make up three echelons:
    Long-range systems - the S-400 Triumph air defense system and the S-200VE Vega air defense system - provide long-range approaches to the defended object.
    At medium ranges, the S-300FM Fort and Buk-M2E medium-range air defense systems are fighting the air enemy.
    Short-range air defense missile systems "Osa-AKM" and S-125 "Pechora-2M".

    Let's add fighter and assault aircraft here.

    All this combined can provide reliable air defense.
    1. Larch
      Larch 16 October 2020 12: 20 New
      +8
      Only one successful target is known against penny drones

      Everything goes to the fact that the air defense will break through, be suppressed by a swarm of UAVs (the USA, China, Europe are actively testing these systems)
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 12: 25 New
        +3
        There are two ways to "break through" an air defense system:
        1. Overload with quantity, so that missiles are not enough
        2. To inflict a covert strike, using the dead zones of the air defense radar.

        UAVs allow you to use both options. This is their advantage.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 16 October 2020 12: 32 New
          +5
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          UAVs allow you to use both options. This is their advantage.

          The stick is always double edged!
          The main advantage of UAVs was obtained when they were not seriously preparing to fight against them.
          Now you need to have both. It is useless to argue with this. The UAV is a complete weapon.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 12: 41 New
            -1
            Quote: rocket757
            when they were not seriously preparing to fight against them.

            Yes, the current short-range, short-range systems show their inadequacy against UAVs of all classes. Against the MALE class, medium-range air defense systems (BUK, S300 / 350) are needed, which is incredibly expensive. There are no effective systems against light and small drones at all. Unless only to bomb control centers.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 16 October 2020 13: 02 New
              +1
              There are many different proposals, from lasers to drones with flamethrowers or shotguns.
              Everything converges to the fact that there will be not a wall, to a wall, but a swarm, a swarm!
              It’s booming to see which concept is more effective, simpler, cheaper.
        2. Airdefense
          Airdefense 16 October 2020 12: 46 New
          +1
          1. Overload with quantity, so that missiles are not enough

          With the current air defense, this is almost a 100% option, cheap drones imitating percussion are not difficult to make, and exchanging missiles for such a drone (which is still good if exchanging one missile for one) is not in favor of air defense
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 16 October 2020 13: 03 New
            0
            Quote: Airdefense
            exchange of one missile for one) is not in favor of air defense

            Air defense is not only about missiles. Complex systems, which will include the most effective means of countering drones.
            1. Airdefense
              Airdefense 16 October 2020 13: 11 New
              +2
              Judging by Idlib, modern UAVs are still effective only with missiles. The shell during the exercises was also able to hit the training target only with missiles.

              1. rocket757
                rocket757 16 October 2020 14: 12 New
                +1
                Rockets, guns and nothing else ???
                Air defense is a lot more components, types of weapons, etc.
                It is not for nothing that they offer the same drone fighter, aircraft or helicopter type, and much more.
                PANTSIR is one of the many weapons systems that form a full-fledged, integrated air defense - missile defense.
                1. Airdefense
                  Airdefense 16 October 2020 14: 17 New
                  +1
                  It is not for nothing that they offer the same drone fighter, aircraft or helicopter type, and much more.

                  We are talking about what is now in mass use especially accessible to countries like Armenia, in theory, of course, they offer a lot of things, antidrones, lasers, EMP weapons, etc.
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 16 October 2020 14: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: Airdefense
                    We are talking about what is now in mass use especially accessible to countries like Armenia,

                    I said about it FAILURE! but why?
                    Because it is not there or because you could not buy it? There is a difference.
                    1. Airdefense
                      Airdefense 16 October 2020 14: 24 New
                      0
                      Because it is not there or because you could not buy it? There is a difference.

                      So there is nothing else in serial production that would be exported and could be acquired by Armenia and, most importantly, placed in Karabakh.
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 16 October 2020 14: 26 New
                        0
                        Most obviously, they can't afford air defense.
                        It is always like that with the small but proud.
        3. YOUR
          YOUR 16 October 2020 12: 51 New
          +2
          There are a lot of ways to break through air defense, and not just 2. To start with the fact that the Earth is round, any radar will "see" a low-altitude target of H-50 meters at a distance of 30 km. Add reaction time i.e. until a decision is made to destroy the target, it will already be at a distance of 10 - 20 km, and if from different angles. Any air defense system has no chance.
          One example is a pair of anti-radar missile carriers approaching from different angles at low altitude making a slide and launching missiles. Various flight programs are implemented in modern rockets. The most modern capture the target i.e. The radar radiation "memorize" the coordinates and then the movement is not uniform rectilinear, but a departure to a low altitude and along a complex trajectory to the target. True, the cost of such missiles is off scale, few of them.
          B / d experience of Karabakh - video drone destroys the working "Osa" air defense system. So much for your air defense.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 13: 02 New
            -3
            Quote: YOUR
            There are many ways to break through air defense, and not just 2.

            I agree. These 2 are the most common and accurate ones. There are a huge number of variations and combinations, the same hypersonic breakthrough, etc.
          2. rocket757
            rocket757 16 October 2020 13: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: YOUR
            So much for your air defense.

            There is no real air defense, stubs, imperfections.
            The problem of mass use of UAVs has been identified, they will hiccup and find a solution.
            I think the corresponding changes will take place with drones, nothing will stand still.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 16 October 2020 13: 38 New
              0
              So far, there is only one solution - electronic warfare. But unfortunately we have very few such complexes.
              Recently yesterday the day before yesterday there was an article about Chinese drones and in the discussions someone inserted a video of firing at a target ZRPK Pantsir, the target, by the way, is rather big with a wingspan of more than 2 m, I specifically found it on the network. In combat conditions, the Shell would be destroyed. The target was spinning circles, they were waiting for when they finally hit. Shot down with a rocket.
              The Chinese tested the launch system for 48 UAVs at once. Imagine a pair of reconnaissance climbed higher, the operator or in automatic mode took the coordinates of the air defense missile system and the rest attacked it from different angles. Moreover, these are kamikaze drones. It is impossible to stop them either with guns or missiles.
              Such development of the UAV is frightening.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 16 October 2020 14: 08 New
                +1
                Quote: YOUR
                So far, there is only one solution - electronic warfare. But unfortunately we have very few such complexes.

                This is not the only solution, and we do not have a few electronic warfare, we have a huge territory, therefore, there are hundreds, thousands of complexes, and more!
                Quote: YOUR
                Moreover, these are kamikaze drones. It is impossible to stop them either with guns or missiles.

                Perhaps only specialized systems are needed, and these are additional costs with not as guaranteed efficiency as we would like.
                Quote: YOUR
                someone inserted a video of firing at a target ZRPK Pantsir,

                We do not put PANTSIRI alone, this is not our method. About the effectiveness of cannon firing at small, nimble targets ... when they were designing, there were other tasks, there will be changes, division by type for different objects.
                In general, it’s a boom to wait and see how a new, important task is solved.
                One thing is clear, the solution will be complex.
              2. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 17 October 2020 12: 09 New
                0
                Quote: YOUR
                It is impossible to stop them either with guns or missiles.

                You can make a 76 mm cannon with radar guidance and a proximity fuse. Such projectiles filled with hundreds of balls will create a continuous field of destruction with a radius of 50 -100 m and a high rate of fire.
                "The Russian fleet expects the delivery of a new shipborne universal 76-mm automatic gun AK-176MA with a digital control system and a new optical-electronic station" Sphere-2 "," allowing to detect targets in any weather at a long distance. "

                The cannon is currently being prepared for production launch. It can be placed both in a "traditional" spherical, and in a turret with a reduced radar signature. It is expected that the new weapon will receive small missile ships of project 22800 "Karakurt", which are currently being built in Russia. It is also reported that the AK-176MA is in service with the newest Arctic patrol ship "Polar Star" of project 22100.

                From the characteristics of the AK-176MA it is known that it can fire with high accuracy at a distance of 15 kilometers, firing 1 shells in 125 minute if necessary. The gun will reach 11,6 km in height. The electronic filling of the automatic cannon is integrated into the new onboard information system of a modern Russian warship. "
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 16 October 2020 12: 33 New
        +5
        Quote: Larch
        Air defense will break through, suppressed by a swarm of UAVs

        In response, you will have to deploy a swarm of UAV interceptors.
        And a plus from above is still to hang a constantly operating UAV-DLRO, otherwise, with a really massive raid, no Shells may be enough.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 12: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          And a plus on top still hang up a permanent UAV-DLRO

          This is first and foremost. We need helicopter UAVs with radar, power supply via cable from the ground station and aircraft UAV with radar. Ground-based radars will definitely not cope with drones, they will not see a drone flying 10 meters above the ground.




          How to shoot down, the second question. A laser, a rocket, a projectile is not important, the main thing is to detect it in time.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 16 October 2020 14: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          In response, you will have to deploy a swarm of UAV interceptors.
          And a plus from above is still to hang a constantly operating UAV-DLRO, otherwise, with a really massive raid, no Shells may be enough.

          Reasonable! I thought about it too! Let the Chinese-48 have a "charging" PU "swarm" of UAVs! In response, a similar PU "swarm" of UAVs-interceptors! Moreover, such a PU can be made like the Donetsk "Cheburashka" ... That is, with "similar" dimensions and an approximate "parity" of the number of guides from "one end", the number of "charges" is greater! Moreover, the principles of the "swarm" are observed! Here is the use of "collective" detection systems, the network-centric principle of target distribution ... Of course, not all are launched, but the required number of interceptors ... the rest, if necessary and as tasks arrive. Such a system can also be used to launch "scouts", "spotters", "traps", "kamikaze" ... The system, preferably, equip a tethered multicopter-radar / OES ... "revolutionary modernization" of ground air defense technology!
      3. rocket757
        rocket757 16 October 2020 12: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: Larch
        Everything goes to the fact that

        In addition, the problem is taken seriously and the results will be, both from one side and from the other ... and who did not have time, he will not see slippers.
    2. Airdefense
      Airdefense 16 October 2020 12: 50 New
      +2
      And this protection of only one base, and it is clear that it is insanely expensive both in terms of technology and people for countries such as Armenia or even Azerbaijan.
    3. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 16 October 2020 20: 40 New
      0
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      Short-range air defense missile systems "Osa-AKM" and S-125 "Pechora-2M" ...
      came across the opinion that against small drones and UAVs (In Syria), the most effective (especially in the near field) turned out "Torah" rather than "Shell" ?!
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 16 October 2020 20: 48 New
        -2
        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
        turned out to be "Torah"

        Against small and light UAVs, yes, great, but very, very expensive. Against the MALE class (Bayraktar, MQ1 / 9), I'm afraid I'm useless.
    4. Piton_kaa
      Piton_kaa 17 October 2020 09: 53 New
      -1
      Don't talk nonsense. Penny drones C - *** do not shoot down, the maximum that can provide additional radar coverage. If there are these systems in Khmeimim, it does not mean that they are used for PDRONO.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 16 October 2020 12: 29 New
    0
    Poor training of personnel as a reason for the destruction of armored vehicles

    We have already written a hundred times that it’s not a "reel"!
  • imobile2008
    imobile2008 16 October 2020 12: 37 New
    +2
    In any conflict, the force that has been invested not so much in the purchase of the latest "toys" as in the training of personnel will win.
    And we do not have professionals, but are invested in conscripts. In a year or two, no one will learn to fight!
  • moscowp
    moscowp 16 October 2020 12: 46 New
    +1
    Do not overestimate BLP, as the American writes, but do not underestimate. The us army, for example, buys blp of various classes in tens of thousands
  • denis obuckov
    denis obuckov 16 October 2020 12: 52 New
    -1
    The article itself states that helicopters and drones were also destroyed. According to the author's logic, they are not needed either? You just need to be able to fight, and not expose equipment at parking areas to attacks, without providing cover from air attacks. All branches of the armed forces and all equipment must act in close cooperation, which is practiced in exercises. And the armies of Armenia and Azerbaijan are an armed rabble of nationalists.
  • bukhach
    bukhach 16 October 2020 12: 53 New
    0
    Quote: imobile2008
    In any conflict, the force that has been invested not so much in the purchase of the latest "toys" as in the training of personnel will win.
    And we do not have professionals, but are invested in conscripts. In a year or two, no one will learn to fight!

    It depends on who teaches and how, and the quality of the trained contingent.
  • denis obuckov
    denis obuckov 16 October 2020 12: 54 New
    -3
    Over the past 5 years in Syria, Russia has developed mechanisms for the destruction of drones and cover for advanced troops from their attacks. But what has Armenia done in these 5 years? They just rode on the Maidan, threw mud at Russia and now they are collecting their corpses. Baku can be congratulated for defeating lazy opponents
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 October 2020 13: 59 New
    +1
    "All this war shows is two poorly trained armies acting awkwardly" ///
    ---
    But at the same time, one of them quickly defeated the other smile
    ----
    It doesn't matter how trained the tank crew is,
    on which a kamikaze drone dives from above. The only one
    the difference is a trained crew, having heard a characteristic sound,
    will have time to jump out of the tank and lie down.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 16 October 2020 14: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It doesn't matter how trained the tank crew is,
      on which a kamikaze drone dives from above

      A trained crew will not leave their tank in position, at least with a net.
      A trained commander will not send tanks into battle without the support of infantry, aviation and air defense.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 October 2020 15: 09 New
        +4
        A tank commander is a sergeant or junior lieutenant.
        He doesn't decide when to go into battle and when not.
        Where and when they are sent, there his tank moves. If he refuses, he will be arrested.
        Drone nets don't help.
        The only thing that can help is KAZ, which automatically knocks down the drone on approach.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 16 October 2020 15: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: Cowbra
    Quote: APASUS
    For us, this war will result in a decrease in orders for tanks and other equipment, I bet.

    And an increase in orders for electronic warfare and short-range air defense, which never allowed a single drone to Khmeimim ... And you can also put on a jeep
    Aviation complex for countering attack missiles "President" (loose components). The complex includes cameras that detect incoming missiles and a laser jamming complex that blinds the optical homing heads of missiles (such as all sorts of "stingers" and "mistrals"). Cheap and cheerful. We take it, turn it upside down so that it looks not from the sky to the ground, but from the ground to the sky, and we get a complex for blinding video cameras of missiles and small RPVs. And no consumables (such as missiles and shells for air defense systems), it works around the clock, the number of "stocked" enemy means of attack is not limited. As a bonus, all newfangled anti-tank missiles - "Jevlins" and all kinds of "spikes"

    - Absolute nonsense and complete ignorance of the materiel! The upward-facing President system will absolutely not interfere with the aiming of Turkish bombs from UAVs - because there GOS thermal imaging coordinators, and not the same as in the IC seeker of short-range missiles.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 16 October 2020 15: 08 New
    +3
    Quote: hrych
    Quote: VO3A
    And such methods are not used in our army, and it is also true that our army does not know how to wage a modern war ...

    Are you talking about Armenia? Khmeimim has already repelled the strikes of a thousand drones, all sorts of different laughing They are jammed by the electronic warfare system, i.e. deprives of control, but it is the Shell that finishes off. Now Armor is additionally supplied with small anti-drone missiles. And there is also a combat ... laser. We have information systems in sufficient quantity. There are also drones and loitering ammunition. All there is, do not worry. Here's how the Shell works with drones:

    - Aren't you ashamed to smack nonsense? This is a polygon survey of American polygon, either "Volcano-Falanx", or "Goalkeeper" ...
    1. hrych
      hrych 16 October 2020 19: 34 New
      -1
      This is a cartoon from a computer game wassat I wanted to troll the commentators, so you got caught laughing
  • Outsider
    Outsider 16 October 2020 15: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: denis obuckov
    Over the past 5 years in Syria, Russia has developed mechanisms for the destruction of drones and cover for advanced troops from their attacks.

    - Russia has not worked out a fig in Syria over these five years, the defeat of the Syrian armored forces near Idlib clearly showed this, - in Karabakh, everything repeated itself on an even larger scale.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 16 October 2020 23: 18 New
    0
    I do not like the Yankees, but they say it. Soberly and balanced.
  • Victorm
    Victorm 17 October 2020 00: 01 New
    0
    In a global or major regional conflict involving countries like the United States, Russia, China, there is simply no one to control drones, I’m not Kiselev, but I’ll remind you about the "nuclear ash".
    In any other conflict, if there were a normal modern army in the place of the Armenian Armed Forces, moreover, a medium-sized army, drone control centers, platforms and airfields for their takeoff and landing would be destroyed, if not in the first hours, then a day.

    The Armenian army, having so many OTRKs in its arsenal, could not hit either the troops in the concentration areas, or the command and control points, or the command posts of the same UAVs. Any other army with such an arsenal of means of destruction, means of electronic warfare and reconnaissance, would solve the problem within a maximum of 2-3 days.

    So it is still too early to write off the tanks, especially because of the failures and the increasingly clear-cut defeat of the Armenian Armed Forces. It's not about tanks, it's about people, personnel and their professionalism.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 18 October 2020 11: 58 New
      0
      In a global or major regional conflict involving countries like the United States, Russia, China, there is simply no one to control drones, I’m not Kiselev, but I’ll remind you about the "nuclear ash".

      - And who will strive to turn into "nuclear ash" itself, after all, "a double-edged sword"?
      It would seem: Russia with one, even non-nuclear, blow could turn the conflict in Karabakh in a direction favorable to it - "it does not strike a finger" ... Not because it does not want to, but because there are too many factors preventing it .. ...
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 17 October 2020 17: 31 New
    +2
    Drones, drones!
    Just think, a swarm of drones - air defense does not save, everything is gone.
    And what if a swarm of missiles from a couple of Grad packages arrives and the air defense rescues?
    Or maybe KAZ will save?
    Nifiga.
    Yes, the drone is smarter, but also more vulnerable.
    It is slower.
    It has a sensor that can be influenced.
    He has "brains" that can be influenced.
    He has a connection with the base and other drones that can be influenced.
    And it's made of thin plastic, it's easier to break it.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 18 October 2020 12: 02 New
      0
      - Both in Idlib and in Karabakh, they (drones) are still remarkably controlled! The Turks gave them to the Azerbaijanis - and they smash the Armenians, "like the Swedes near Poltava!" And Russia cannot give them to Armenia - because she doesn't have them! The lunar rover was launched 60 years ago, and to build a combat UAV - bye!
      Maybe "something needs to be tweaked at the conservatory"?
  • Egor53
    Egor53 17 October 2020 22: 11 New
    0
    The article is primitive.
    Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has any aviation at all involved in this war, and practically no air defense.
    Evaluating the effectiveness of drones in such conditions is simply not correct.
  • Victorm
    Victorm 18 October 2020 12: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: Egor53
    The article is primitive.
    Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has any aviation at all involved in this war, and practically no air defense.
    Evaluating the effectiveness of drones in such conditions is simply not correct.

    About air defense, you are clearly excited, look at the list of destroyed air defense systems of the Armenian Armed Forces: Osa-AKM, Tor-M2KM, S-125, S-300, ZU-23, ZSU-23-4 air defense systems, many countries are much larger and richer than Armenia about such complexes and cannot dream. Armenia received them for free, sorry for the turnover, that's why it treated them so carelessly and treats them.

    Well, take the same Turkey, before the acquisition of the S-400, it did not have air defense systems of a higher quality and more modern than the systems in service with the Armenian Armed Forces. And even now it has no analogues, for example, the same Tor-M2KM air defense system, and the Armenians have already managed to sleep up 3 units. I don’t know if I’ll be surprised or not, but the Turkish Armed Forces are armed with the ZSU-23-4 Shilka, and not because of the good life, at one time Azerbaijani officers trained Turkish ones. Now it may have been removed, but the Soviet BTR-60PB and the BTR-70 purchased from the FRG from the remnants of the GDR army were also in service. By the way, their study and cooperation with the Romanian manufacturer became the basis for the development of our own production of wheeled armored vehicles of this class.