Defense TV: Russia could develop new weapons thanks to "advanced" NATO armored vehicles captured in Ukraine

The West fears that Russia will develop new models weapons thanks to the study of Western military equipment that fell into the hands of the Russian army during the fighting in Ukraine. This was reported by the American portal Defense TV.

Western experts believe that Russia is capable of creating new types of weapons by studying the “advanced” systems of NATO countries that fell into the hands of the Russian military as trophies. Among the captured samples are the Marder 1A3, Bradley M2A2 and CV 9040 infantry fighting vehicles, the study of which can help Russian specialists understand the technologies and design principles of Western military equipment.

This will allow Russian specialists to modify and improve their weapons. For example, the armor, sensors and electronic systems of these armored vehicles could lead to the development of countermeasures that increase the survivability of Russian armored vehicles against similar threats.

- experts say.

The main danger of studying captured combat vehicles by Russian specialists is the appearance on the battlefield of Russian equipment that is significantly superior to “advanced Western” equipment. Judging by the reports from the Russian military from the front line, all this “world’s best” and “advanced” armored vehicles burn very well.

As previously reported, an exhibition of captured Western armored vehicles captured in battles in Ukraine can be viewed as part of the exhibition on Poklonnaya Hill, which will run from the first to the last day of May. In total, more than 30 pieces of equipment produced in 12 countries will be exhibited.

Comments

[Serhio250381]

They will definitely develop it. Tremble.

[Orange bigg]

Already developed. The Lancet destroyed the American HIMARS MLRS near Krasny Liman. Video at the link below.

.Two kilometers from the village. Krasny Liman, a launcher of the American HIMARS MLRS was destroyed by loitering ammunition at night.

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/67034

[Mikhail Ivanov]

I looked at it, it was beautiful. The Chronicle writes that due to a lack of artillery, the Chimeras began to be pulled closer to the front, this is what destroys them.
The idea of ​​using NATO equipment in our interests is very controversial. Firstly, our own equipment is no worse, and secondly, on the battlefield these Abrams and Leopards proved inferior. And although the Kurds and Houthis have long demonstrated this to everyone, the Western machines burned in Ukraine have completely lost confidence. Now the main know-how of this war is the “Iron Kaput” tank, which paved the road to Krasnogorovka!)

[dmi.pris1]

The control system and communications will be interesting. Well, engines perhaps

[guest]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

The idea of ​​using NATO equipment in our interests is very controversial.

The idea there is a little different and absolutely correct; having learned all the weak points of this Western technology, we will be able to create weapons that will destroy it very effectively.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Having learned all the weak points of this Western technology, we will be able to create weapons that will destroy it very effectively.

I would like to go into more detail from this place....My knowledge of tanks does not go beyond the common joke that tanks are not afraid of dirt, but still, tankers should wash themselves sometimes....
But is it really a secret to anyone in the world where tanks or infantry fighting vehicles are most vulnerable? And what is better to get into the rear of the tank with the engine or into the upper hemisphere. It’s not for nothing that the Javellin makes such an approach to the target. So what is special that can be learned, and most importantly, how can an ATGM shell or the same Lancet be aimed at a target with such precision down to a centimeter? Does a Lancet or a Kornet shell select a point on a tank with such precision? God willing, I just get there, and then all my hope is in the power of the charge.
It’s another thing to study all the electronics and other stuff inside the tank in order to compare and compare what you might not have yourself... But that’s about something else, not about vulnerabilities

[guest]

Quote: Saburov_Alexander53

But is it really a secret to anyone in the world where tanks or infantry fighting vehicles are most vulnerable?

Of course not, but the enemy is trying to protect these vulnerable places, and if we know exactly how he does this, then these places of his again become vulnerable.

[Rhene_Malkart]

on the battlefield, these Abrams and Leopards admitted their inferiority. And although the Kurds and Houthis have long demonstrated this to everyone, the Western cars burned in Ukraine have finally lost confidence

Do not rush to classify as “inferior” tanks that simply ended up in the wrong place and in the wrong role. If the Ukrainian Armed Forces had had our T-90Ms instead of them, they would have burned in exactly the same way. Ukrainians have complex problems with conducting combined arms combat, when ground forces operate practically without air support in the presence of it from the opposite side (Russian Aerospace Forces) + the clear superiority of our army in artillery and the number of equipment

Well, drones, as the main novelty of modern military thought, are so far the very “crowbar” for which there is no working method

We will talk about the combat effectiveness of Leopards and Abrams when we see their full-fledged work as part of our armies, for which they were created. And not in the hunt for partisans with RPGs, but in a clash with an organized army. If we see, of course

[Ovsigovets]

Why didn’t you like the work of Leo and Abram in the ranks of the Armed Forces, as an example of their work???? in Western Europe, the Armed Forces are the only ones that have experience of a large, full-fledged war with a regular army and not the Papuans... I’m sure the EU armies do not have such experience

[Rhene_Malkart]

Why didn’t the work of Leo and Abrams in the ranks please you?

I said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a whole have problems with conducting combined arms operations and maneuvers due to a comprehensive deficit in one or the other. And here it’s no longer so important how good the Abrams and Leopards are, if in the conditions in which they fight, any tank is doomed to quickly burn out

[anatolv]

Well, you missed something! Throw a barrel at the amers! It has long been recognized that the Americans were planning a counter-offensive against them! The coolest guys, so to speak, with the richest combat experience! And you are trying to shift responsibility to the Ukrainian Armed Forces!

[Rhene_Malkart]

The Americans planned a counterattack against them! The coolest guys, so to speak, with the richest combat experience!

And since then, only the lazy have not kicked the Americans for their “planning”. If you dig deeper, the problem with the United States is that some people are involved in planning military actions, and others are involved in deciding on the transfer of weapons

The devil knows who is more to blame for their summer failure, but Zaluzhny himself admitted that it was pointless to attack with the forces that the Armed Forces of Ukraine had. And one of the American generals said that NATO itself would never have attacked such a line of defense without air supremacy

So, as I said, Leopolds and Abrams in this case were simply thrown “to slaughter”, where no technical advantages would have saved them

[Ovsigovets]

Well, excuse me))) The RF Armed Forces did not create all the conditions for their successful use)))) there are no ideal conditions and never will be..... bitches, unlike many NATO armies, have real experience in databases, and not parquet shuffling)) )) and this is a fact, Mr. Duke....they had Leo and Abrams, not scattered one unit at a time in all parts, but a normally staffed brigade(s)......they did not cope with the task, they burned their tanks. ...everything else is "Yaroslavna's lament" and nothing more

[Rhene_Malkart]

They didn’t cope with the task, their tanks were burned

Did anyone deny that the Ukrainian Armed Forces failed to cope with the task?

It was initially about the fighting qualities of Western tanks. I say that they found themselves in conditions where tanks could not solve anything. When their enemy has unsuppressed attack aircraft, artillery, hectares of minefields, firing positions with ATGMs and kamikaze drones, tanks will do little here

There are no ideal conditions and never will be.

Nobody talked about “ideal” either. The point is that the conditions must be at least suitable
Our tanks, finding themselves in the situations described above, burned and are burning in exactly the same way. It turns out that our tanks are also bad? Then there are no good tanks, it turns out

And the point here is not the experience of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but the fact that they (to our joy) lack the technical means to successfully conduct combined arms combat. Why the Americans drove them into an obviously hopeless counter-offensive without providing these means is a question for the political leadership. The need for that operation was clearly not dictated by military considerations

[Ovsigovets]

What does suitable conditions mean? if we are talking about a war between NATO and the Russian Federation, then in general there are conditions for the use of tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons in mass quantities..... you now remind me of a guy who either quickly cums or does not get up..... all his conditions are not the same)) ))

[GGV]

Thank you, excellent video. With ammunition and repeated detonation, not one Sumer will pretend to be a fool claiming that it is a mock-up.

[Anadyrean]

They say the charger was slammed.

[newtc7]

Yeah, definitely) who? What about the Ministry of Defense with its contractors? There's no time for development there. Almost everything new that was done during the SVO is private, from FPV drones and lancets (Kalashnikov is a private company) to the king-barbecue. The Ministry of Defense provided exactly zero innovations, only guided bombs, and even then the technology was old - they implemented it somehow.
When a system is designed for cutting and locking in the Moscow region, don’t expect innovation from it.
This equipment will be exhibited for PR in Patriot Park, they will write a bunch of papers on this issue, but hardly anyone will take responsibility for creating something new based on this technology.

[Skobaristan]

IMHO. Only the Swede is interesting.

[bayard]

Quote: Skobaristan

IMHO. Only the Swede is interesting.

Well, why only the Swede? With the latest Leopolds, you can be curious about the tank, sight, and communications.
But the Swede is really interesting. Maybe it will be a kick for the speedy creation of our own TBTR and TBMP on a tank chassis and with a normal lineup at the stern ramp.

[Aleks88]

// But the Swede is really interesting //
The Swede in the amount of 1200 cars walks all over the world. Including Africa. Moreover, he is from the 80s. It would be wrong to think that they will “outplay” Boomerang.
The matrices too, we have French ones, 3rd generation (Sosna-U), but there is no “exhaust” from this.
Really interesting is the MTU883, the German Leo diesel. It’s high time to send the T-34 B-2 to a well-deserved rest. The Turks also fought for it in their Altai (to no avail). And Bofors, or rather ammunition (2A42 from 60 is also time to retire).
PS: But for “reverse engineering” you will have to turn to Iranian masters. Otherwise, Armata will continue to “ride” on a “chain-leg” X-shaped diesel engine.

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

The matrices too, we have French ones, 3rd generation (Sosna-U), but there is no “exhaust” from this.

Maybe you can give at least one case of using this advantage of Western tanks over ours? During the SVO, which is in its third year?
Although no one will refuse the opportunity to improve their technique.

Quote: Aleks88

It’s high time to send the T-34 B-2 to a well-deserved rest.

This is the engine of our T-90M and T-72B3M and is quite enough for such tanks. At the same time, our tanks are more MOBILE, more reliable and feel much better on soft and muddy soils. The engine power has been increased to 1130 l/s and for this type of equipment this engine is quite sufficient.

Quote: Aleks88

Otherwise, Armata will continue to “ride” on a “chain-leg” X-shaped diesel engine.

This diesel engine has also been improved and is already being mass-produced (the series is limited for now). The power of this engine can be increased over time to 2000 hp; it is much more compact than the successors of the V-2 and the Leo-2 engine, and lighter. So a trophy definitely won’t hurt, reverse engineering will probably come in handy, but definitely not for the Armata, which is not needed by the troops for nothing yet. We need T-90M, T-80BVM and their new modifications. "Armata" is too expensive for a mass-produced tank and creating a fleet of such tanks is unjustified.

[Aleks88]

//at least one case of using this advantage//
Yes, after the French refused to sell (the matrix), we bought through the Republic of Belarus. When this channel was closed, there was not enough Sosna-U even for new tanks. At the same time, the motherboard is ALREADY old.
Essence: There is no such class of matrix, and no technology for its production. An article on VO, which compared the picture of a night sight (instead of which they put Sosna) and the picture of Sosna-U. Instead of a night position, since they didn’t find another place (due to size), so the gunner sits with the letter Z
// This diesel engine has also been improved and is already being mass-produced //
They didn’t get it, because this problem is still being discussed online, what motivated the T-14 test subjects? Almost a GTD-1250 is suggested.
1130 turned out to be again turbocharged x2 diesel B-84, which means the resource is less.

https://alexfiles99.narod.ru/engine2/mt880series/mt880series.htm
Here are the dimensions, smaller than those of the 12N360. The power of 2250 is increasing. Now the power of 12N360 is 1200 l/s. there is something 1800x980x830 something like that.
And so the whole line.
MTU 883 - Leclerc, very compact in terms of power density

//"Armata" is too expensive for a mass-produced tank and creating a fleet of such tanks is unjustified//
Better 1 for 5 than 2 for 4. According to the T-90M, $4.8 million. Now is simply not the time to rebuild production

[bayard]

As far as I've heard, there are already enough Sosna-U sights for all new and modernized tanks. There were problems with the number of sights in the first year and a half of the Northern Military District, when a sharp increase in the production of new and modernized tanks led to a lag in the production of sights for them. Then, the previous generation sights from the T-62U and T-72A were temporarily installed on the T-3M and part of the T-80B90M. Now there should be enough for everything, despite the fact that the production of tanks continues to increase. I wouldn’t be surprised if this year the industry donates about 2500 new and modernized vehicles to the troops (last year there were just over 1500).

Quote: Aleks88

They didn’t get it, because this problem is still being discussed online, what motivated the T-14 test subjects? Almost a GTD-1250 is suggested.

These are stories. At "Armata" there is a standard diesel engine, which, judging by publications from UVZ, has been brought to fruition, a production line has been prepared, a new workshop for "Armata" has also been built and equipped, and they are also going to produce the "Terminator" BMPT there in parallel. For me, "Armata needs postpone until calmer times, and drive with a wide series of BMPT\ShMPP and T-90M. If you really want, you can stuff the engine from the Armata into the new modification of the T-80. So that there is both a diesel and a gas turbine version. But this is also for later.

Quote: Aleks88

1130 turned out to be again turbocharged x2 diesel B-84, which means the resource is less.

In your opinion, it turns out that turbocharged engines of trucks and cars also have garbage life? Or is it to increase traction and improve fuel efficiency?
There are no problems with the resource of this engine. Moreover, ChTZ is breaking its own Soviet records for its production. All T-90M and T-72B3M run with these and are very happy. RELIABLE.. So for our wartime, a well-functioning technical process and mass production are more important than fashion.
So copying German engines will most likely be postponed until after the war.

Quote: Aleks88

Better 1 for 5 than 2 for 4. According to the T-90M, $4.8 million. Now is simply not the time to rebuild production

The price of the T-90M was quoted at the old pre-war ruble exchange rate and for small-scale production. I don’t think that today the T-90M is being built from scratch (because some of the full ones were simply obtained when upgrading the T-90A to the T-90M) ... So, I think that today the cost of the T-90 could be about 3,5 million. dollars Due to the changed exchange rate and a reduction in price due to mass production and (which is very important) due to advance payment of military purchases up to 90% of the order cost. It’s just that the bank interest on the loan when executing the order is also excluded from the price.

I think that all T-73B to B3M, those in storage, and all T-80BV will undergo modernization. And the construction of the T-90M tanks and the new modification of the T-80 will continue, and at the highest possible pace. The RF Armed Forces need to increase the tank fleet to approximately 20 - 000 tanks. Because new divisions, corps, armies are being deployed, the number of the Russian Army is increasing by almost an order of magnitude, because before the Northern Military District it was scanty - only 25 thousand people. including conscripts.
I don’t see a place for “Armata” in current procurement programs. Perhaps purchasing a brigade kit for mastering and assessing combat value and operational issues. The decision must be made after the war.

[ln_ln]

Really interesting is the MTU883, the German Leo diesel.

Leo2 has MTU873. Not bad, but very large.

[Aleks88]

See above ↑
There is a size chart. MTU883 - Leclerc, MTU873 Leo
Dimensions are smaller.

[ln_ln]

There is a size chart. MTU883 - Leclerc, MTU873 Leo
Dimensions are smaller.

883 on Leclerc only on export Tropicalese.
Modification 883 for 2250 liters. With. - this is a shed with a 2-stage supercharging that will not fit into any tank; it was planned for a planing transporter for Marines.
873 is much larger in size than 883.

[Aleks88]

1700x964x964 - 2250 883x12
1700x964x965 - 1500 883x12
1535x970x730 - 1500 881x8
I know these sizes. 12Н360 more

[ln_ln]

I know these sizes.

When I get to work, I’ll lay out the sheets from the MTU booklet around 2000.

[ln_ln]

From MTU booklets 97-00.

[Askold65]

Of all this equipment, the most interesting is the Swedish CV 9040.

[Metallurg_2]

Will they be allowed to write “satisfied with the ruins of Berlin” on the Leopard?

[Medvedev_Dmitry]

Certainly. We can do it again, right?

[seamen2]

Did you also stick it on the window of your car about, can we repeat, on Berlin, etc.?

[Medvedev_Dmitry]

Me not. But you don’t know the word “sarcasm”. It's clear

[Thrifty]

In electrical and electronics, and even more so in microelectronics, they are stronger than us, I don’t argue! But these are all old developments from 20-30 years ago, and as for armoring and protecting equipment, here we are ahead, it is the experience of the Northern Military District that proves this! When they arrive in the T90M 4 shots from an anti-tank missile system and at least a couple more drones, and the tank drives away under its own power! Their highly promoted equipment becomes scrap metal from a couple of drones!

[KCA]

Don’t confuse show-offs for sale in civilian life with military equipment, do you really think that UWB ammunition contains MSKh with a 0.2nm process technology? Fu-22 flies on a 1992 PowerPC, oh, where's the .2nm? It seems that the coolest is .0.09 microns, and I doubt that they are worth it, and not .5 microns, for a military service and 200 microns is quite

[Thrifty]

KSA - we have processors based on the 100nm process technology, how is that? The army needs 40nm processors, at a minimum, but we don’t have such technology! And what do we have with the “military” and “space” processors???

[Tagan]

Stop being nonsense already! Well, how do you know which armies need processors? If you don’t understand this or don’t have specialized education, then don’t bother to say how it should be. The basis is “mathematics”, reliability, weight,
energy consumption. What nanometers this is based on is largely a mystery. In light of this, your nanometers play a secondary role.

[newtc7]

Well, of course. Everything is fine, we have everything with electronics and processors, we’re just stupid and don’t understand anything) thank you for explaining that you can be successful with the technologies of the early nineties. OK

[Tagan]

Well, if you don’t understand, then what are we talking about? You didn't even bother to understand what it was about.

[newtc7]

I dug into it and realized that you are trying to explain that in the army, in electronics, system stability and survivability are more important than processor power. This is partly true, of course, that electronics for the army should be “indestructible”.
But this does not negate the fact that with electronics we have a complete failure everywhere possible.

[Aleks88]

// The basis is “mathematics”, reliability, mass,
energy consumption. //
Exactly. Only these Raptor prototypes flew on a 486 processor (in 1992 there was nothing cooler). When the series aired in 2005, it was completely different. And not so long ago, all 186 F-22s underwent modernization, including avionics.
“Mathematics, mass, energy consumption,” plus flops - this is the advantage of the technical process.
The Chinese began installing their own avionics units on the “licensed” Su-27 almost from the very beginning.
Even without getting into the jungle of the military, at least 2 “civilian” Su-35S units (open sources) were equipped with American 48-bit processors. The closest (available) Chinese analogue is not suitable without reworking the entire unit. We cannot make it, even knowing the logic.
Maybe we fly on old stocks, maybe the People's Republic of China ordered an analogue

[KCA]

American 48-bit processors were installed only on IBM mainframes; they are in no way suitable for avionics; the first versions of the F-22 flew not on 486, but on 386 processors

[stelltok]

show-offs for sale in civilian clothes and military equipment

Are UAVs/Quadcopters considered military equipment?
Well, for UAVs/quadcopters, you need an emnip of 10-16 nm.

[KCA]

Of course, but they are made on the civilian version of ARM, but for development from scratch for war it is redundant, massive, accessible, and electronic warfare is suppressed, imagine, the Sarmat ICBMs have Intel .10nm CPUs, even if they are not torn by overload at start, Will it be easy for you to know about this, or to hell with it, even if it’s radio tubes, but it flies on its own?

[ln_ln]

mskh with 0.2nm process technology

Probably a typo...
The silicon lattice pitch is 0,54 nm.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: Thrifty

But these are all old developments from 20-30 years ago, and as for armoring and protecting equipment, here we are ahead, the experience of the Northern Military District proves this!

Just the experience of the Northern Military District proves that MBTs like Leo2 and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles 100% withstand mines and even combinations of 3, judging by the craters, the crew does not suffer, unlike any Soviet-Russian armored vehicles, which are easily blown up by mines without adequately protecting the crew . So in general, the passive armor of Western vehicles, especially against cumulative ammunition, is more resistant. Before the SVO, all this patriotic frenzy, far from reality, seemed idiocy to me, since this is obviously one of the reasons for the lack of modern armored vehicles at the right time for the country, but when after 2 years of the SVO and thousands of video recordings, as if nothing had happened about some kind of leadership in the field of armored vehicles is being fantasized, this is already a clinic. Just to note, during the Ukrop offensive from the beginning of June to the end of August, about 80 Leo2s were used, 22 of which were knocked out, but 18 were restored and only four were irretrievable. All crews survived. In the Russian Federation, ancient armored steels are still used, but modern ones from 550 Binels are not in production, since there is no modern equipment for processing it, and there are no technologies. Here you are, like the patriots are being told on all sorts of TV and Zvizdim about “analognets”, but what else should they tell you and show you, when there were 10 years of time before the North Military District and tens of lards of $ poured into UVZ, which should have already equipped the army with modern armored vehicles, which They were only carried in parades. And of course, samples of Western technology are of interest to Russian specialists, but other than the layout, there is little that can be copied, since this requires strong mechanical engineering, the electron-optical industry, and a lot of things that have been lost in the last 20 years, and the 90s are not to blame.

[newtc7]

You are completely right, but you can’t explain this to turbo-patriots, they have no ability for critical thinking, they’re just angry

[ln_ln]

but modern Binels from 550 are not in production

Are you going to explain this to the “turbo-patriots”?

[Askold65]

Quote: karabas-barabas

Just to note, during the Ukrop offensive from the beginning of June to the end of August, about 80 Leo2s were used, 22 of which were knocked out, but 18 were restored and only four were irretrievable.

Where did you get this data from? I googled it here and found information from Reznik that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have delivered 60 Leopard-2 tanks. According to your data, 22 of them were knocked out - and this is every third “invulnerable tank”, of which 18 (according to your data) required evacuation to repair factories, and apparently, Western countries. As they say now, they left the chat (“counter-offensive”).
The weaknesses of the Leopard are well known - weak armor on the sides and side projections of the hull and turret, and no “binelli” will save them from penetrating even not very advanced anti-tank systems. In addition, it is very important to use any tanks tactically competently, so as not to lead them into minefields, which led to the failure of the bulk of the Ukrop vehicles.

Quote: karabas-barabas

All crews survived.

As the tankers themselves say, the main losses of tankers are not in the tank, but next to the tank at the time of evacuation from damaged vehicles from bullets and shrapnel.

[LuckyBlog]

I also wrote that Western tanks have an advantage due to the fact that the ammo is removed (although Leo2 has a place for the ammo next to the driver), for 2 years of the Northern Military District there are almost no photos where Western tanks threw the turret, while our tanks (ours mean Soviet and their heirs, on both sides) without a tower rampart throughout the world. Leo2 had this only in Syria, where the Turks filled the space for the ammunition next to the carrier with HE shells, but since then this has practically never happened. Well, I’ve written more than once about the cardboard armor of our infantry fighting vehicles

[Askold65]

Quote: LuckyBlog

Leo2 had this only in Syria, where the Turks loaded the place for the ammunition next to the carrier with HE shells, but since then this has practically never happened

Abrams has fuel tanks on both sides of the mechanical drive. And the removed ammunition in the turret compartment is safe only if it is loaded with BOPS. In the Challenger, the BC is located in the hull, below the turret ring.
But I have already written the opinion of the SVO tankers that the main crew losses occur during evacuation from a damaged vehicle. If the Leopard is hit, will the crew sit in the tank and wait for them to be taken away or will they try to escape before they are finished off?

[LuckyBlog]

most of their Western tanks were knocked out relatively far from the LBS, by drones. so their crews simply abandoned the car. but if the Tashka threw the turret (and even if with only BOPS, then it’s a lost cause.

[Askold65]

Most Western tanks, if we talk about Leo, as those that took part most, were destroyed on the front line and mainly when hitting mines. Like the Tigers and Panthers on the Kursk Bulge. And it is not known how many tankers died there... He got out of the tank, but received a shrapnel or a bullet. And it is not correct to compare the warring tanks and those that are somewhere out there... like the Challenger, in the rear.

Quote: LuckyBlog

but if the Tashka threw the turret (and even if with only BOPS), then it’s all lost.

The key word is "if". Most tanks survive several hits and are sent for repairs.

[LuckyBlog]

about Leo2, this is true for the beginning of their use, and then they began to be hit by drones, and Abrash emnip or ATGMs or drones (although in the case of ATGMs, yes. It’s relatively close to the line)

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: Askold65

Where did you get this data from? I googled it here

Data from Orex and the like. If you have questions for them, please explain them. And maybe it’s better to google it. The exact number is 78 Leo2 from the beginning of June to the end of August, of which only 4 were destroyed! Shot down does not mean destroyed. Who ever said that Leo2 are invulnerable? In terms of the destruction of the vehicle and crew, they proved a high level of protection, which is quite pointless to dispute and argue about it, and the 4 Leo2s destroyed in 3 months clearly demonstrate this. Throughout the entire Northern Military District, I’ve probably seen hundreds of times how BMPs 1,2,3, T-72, 80, 90 scatter into molecules from hitting a mine, or from being hit by a drone or ATGM, but never with Bradley, or Leo2, or Abrams like that shattered into pieces under a similar defeat. I don’t care about the cons, but you, like patriots and lovers of once good, but long ago outdated Soviet technology, who like to chat about how Leo2 and Abrams “burn well”, you are the same accomplices and culprits of what is happening at the front now, that the Russian army is armed with essentially rubbish, which costs great losses. You know nothing about the armor of Leo2 and it’s unclear why you ignore reality, which seems to show you that the chatter about the “thin sides” of Leo2 makes no sense, especially since you’re drawing some strange conclusions, like, well, there’s so much on some fence They’ve been writing about the thin armor of Leo2 for years, and that’s why they should be burning in the hundreds, of course from an ancient RPG.

Quote: Askold65

As the tankers themselves say, the main losses of tankers are not in the tank, but next to the tank at the time of evacuation from damaged vehicles from bullets and shrapnel.

This is the case with Leo2 and Bradley, but all the products of UVZ and Kurganmashzavod could be observed hundreds of times for 2 years. That is, the crews of UVZ and co. products don’t even have to hide from some bullets and fragments, since they fly apart into fragments along with the tank.

[Askold65]

Quote: karabas-barabas

The exact number is 78 Leo2 from the beginning of June to the end of August, of which only 4 were destroyed!

Didn’t your “undead” Orex write how many of these received tanks took part in the battles? But didn’t they crawl where they were, in the second echelon or in reserve on other fronts? Are there any numbers, how many tanks did they send to the front line? In any case, a third of them were sent for repairs.

Quote: karabas-barabas

Shot down does not mean destroyed. Who ever said that Leo2 are invulnerable? In terms of the destruction of the vehicle and crew, they have proven a high level of protection, which is quite pointless to dispute and argue about it

You, apparently, are not aware that Russian tanks also withstand several hits before being sent for repairs, and not, “by definition” (yours), scatter into molecules.

Quote: karabas-barabas

Throughout the entire Northern Military District, I’ve probably seen hundreds of times how BMPs 1,2,3, T-72, 80, 90 scatter into molecules from hitting a mine, or from being hit by a drone or ATGM, but never with Bradley, or Leo2, or Abrams like that scattered to pieces under a similar defeat.

Are you at the very “front” of us, that you have witnessed grandiose explosions HUNDREDS of times?

Quote: karabas-barabas

You know nothing about the armor of Leo2 and it’s unclear why you ignore reality, which seems to show you that the chatter about the “thin sides” of Leo2 makes no sense, especially since you’re drawing some strange conclusions, like, well, there’s so much on some fence They’ve been writing about the thin armor of Leo2 for years, and that’s why they should be burning in the hundreds, of course from an ancient RPG.

If my memory serves me correctly, the thickness of the side projections and roof of the Leopard is 70 mm. 7 cm (SEVEN CENTIMETERS), Karl! And not on the fence, but in the ZVO magazine. And even Western experts noted this weakness. Was it in vain that the dill tried to hang their remote sensing on their armor?

Quote: karabas-barabas

That is, the crews of UVZ and co. products don’t even have to hide from some bullets and fragments, since they fly apart into fragments along with the tank.

It's all bullshit... Calm down. Drink some water.
There are crews that have replaced several vehicles. And dozens of tanks are waiting for their repair at bases and repair factories.

[Askold65]

Quote: karabas-barabas

.....they say, well, on some fence for so many years they wrote about the thin armor of Leo2 and that’s why they should burn in the hundreds, of course from the ancient RPG.

They burn not from RPGs, but from shots fired from RPGs....attached to cheap drones.

[newtc7]

Our ammunition detonates and, unfortunately, often, theirs does not. Armata could improve the situation, but it is too expensive - mainly due to the same electronic filling that we do not make ourselves or make of poor quality.

[Askold65]

Quote from: newtc7

Our ammunition detonates and, unfortunately, often, theirs does not.

Because our tanks fight more often, unlike Western ones.
The ammunition of Russian tanks in Chechnya detonated mainly from hits from RPG-7 shots between the road wheels, due to the illiterate use of tanks in urban conditions. On American Abrams tanks, the ammunition detonated when anti-tank weapons hit the rear of the turret, and even the ejector panels could not save them. Detonation is also possible in the event of a fire inside the tank, but here the speed and serviceability of the fire extinguishing system is already important.

Quote from: newtc7

Armata could improve the situation, but it is too expensive

"Armata" is also vulnerable to detonation when anti-tank weapons hit the AZ ammunition. The Armata only has higher crew survivability due to its armored capsule. The cost of the "Almata" is determined by both the complexity of the design and the complexity of the avionics. Including the presence of all sorts of incomprehensible radars with AFAR. "Stuffed" to the hilt, like a 5th generation fighter for the "network-centric" war of the future.

[rotmistr60]

Russia is capable of creating new types of weapons by studying the “advanced” systems of NATO countries that fell into the hands of the Russian military as trophies

First of all, this will help to establish the weaknesses of Western technology in order to develop more effective methods of combating this “advanced” miracle technology, which our soldiers began to destroy with its appearance on the battlefield. And of course, the composition of the armor and the electronic filling are of interest to our engineers and specialists working on the creation of Russian armored vehicles. Judging by the losses of Western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, this equipment can be called “advanced” with a stretch. It is also possible that the “front line” is fighting against natives and a weak army with a small number of modern anti-tank weapons.

[Andrey Moskvin]

I don’t understand what such an advanced thing can be created using damaged captured equipment.

[DoctorRandom]

We couldn’t bring our “own” Boomerangs, Kurgans and other analogues presented back in 2015 to fruition, but as soon as captured vehicles appeared, we can do it right away? I willingly believe it.

[Sergey3]

Well, if the optics were made by the French, the suspension by the Italians, and so on down the list...

[Serhio250381]

They don’t exist, not because they are “stupid” and “not brought to mind.” It's the same with Armata. But because they are expensive. That's the only reason they don't exist

[DoctorRandom]

Or simply because this technology contains a huge number of imported components.

[Serhio250381]

No one is stopping you from replacing them with Russian components. There is nothing fundamentally new there that was not in our old infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and tanks, except for their shape. The same applies to airplanes and helicopters.

[bk0010]

Quote: Serhio250381

They don’t exist, not because they are “stupid” and “not brought to mind”

They are not brought to mind. It's no secret that the same Armata has problems with its engine. And for Kurganets - not only with the engine, if I'm not confusing anything.

[Serhio250381]

You are confused. They don't have any special problems with engines. The military, as always, complained about the high profile and high cost. Our military still has to keep all its vehicles at ground level. Although, the drone doesn’t care about your profile.

[bk0010]

Quote: Serhio250381

They don't have any particular problems with their engines.

https://topwar.ru/207749-armaty-ne-budet-mozhno-rashoditsja.html

[Serhio250381]

Well? This article says that everything is wrong and everything is wrong. From engines and automatic transmissions, to electronics and armor with radars. And in general, the plant has no time to make it. And then a story about how difficult it is to make a tank under sanctions. Only in our country 2300 tanks were supposed to be made before 2020, i.e. before sanctions and before war. But they did not provide the required amount of money for this.
And all the shortcomings of the motor were eliminated with a 2V-12-3A motor

[newtc7]

It seems that some department of the Ministry of Defense works for this site, which minuses quite honest adequate comments and plus outright cheers)
And really - there is nothing of this in the troops? And after 2.5 years of war, it never appeared; on the contrary, the T-55 was put into operation (although this may be a normal solution). Then why suddenly seeing a live (damaged) Abrams should change something, you might think before that no one knew what was better there: electronics, communications, thermal imagers, optics, etc.

[bayard]

Quote from: newtc7

why suddenly seeing a live (damaged) Abrams should change something, you would think before that no one knew what was better there: electronics, communications, thermal imagers, optics, etc.

Well, it’s one thing to know, it’s another thing to turn it in your hands, study it, and use something in your developments. Although, in general, our tanks have shown and continue to show themselves in the Northern Military District much better than NATO’s. According to the set of parameters and capabilities.

Quote from: newtc7

T-55 was put into operation

As highly protected self-propelled guns in defense, for firing from closed positions. In addition, there were heaps of shells for their guns, and while the shell hunger was not eliminated, this was (and perhaps there still is somewhere, a very effective help.

Quote from: newtc7

this may be a ok solution

This was the “okay decision”.
And don’t worry about the pros/cons. Sometimes there is such a bacchanalia going on here that you don’t understand whose bots are bigger. The yard here is always full of non-brothers.

[Vladlous]

Russia will develop new weapons and more than one. But this is not why conquered Western technology is brought to Moscow. New types of Russian weapons will not be created for the sake of fighting the M113, Leopard-2 tanks or CV90 infantry fighting vehicles. This technology, although not the worst, is still far from being called the newest. Now, when the threat of a big war looms over the world, military-technical thought is rapidly developing. It is important to anticipate trends and deeply analyze the practice of combat use of different types of weapons. That is why the Russian military-industrial complex, producing current variants of military equipment, is actively starting to produce samples of advanced weapons, leaving the European military-industrial complex far behind.

Yes, the enemy cannot be underestimated. It is precisely for this reason that our engineers and other specialists are designing new systems not at all to combat the same M 113 or, for example, AMX 10. For these comrades, the RPG-7 is enough. But the interesting thing is that NATO does not supply supplies to Ukraine, but saves them for a direct clash with Russia. And against all this, a shell, missile and armored reserve is being created.

[Enceladus]

What is advanced there? Essentially, the rubbish is transferred 404... fallow to square so to speak

[Prisoner]

It's amazing how "advanced" they are. Those arrogant freaks!

[Observer2014]

Can not. Now let’s deal with the adepts and the not smart ones. And the technical specifications (technical conditions) at least until the end of May... Everything will be fine. There won’t be any more floating crap without armor with incredible firepower. It will be heavy (and therefore maximally protected), with KAZ (active protection complex), with normally approaching infantry from behind (boys up to two meters tall must enter) In full combat gear.
R\ZY You don’t want to do it. You yourself drive these nags like BMP 1,2....And other slag for pygmies.

[Observer2014]

May the pygmies forgive me. It came out purely for the sake of suggestibility, so to speak.

[Alex 22 22]

Is there any evidence that the majority of basketball players will join the mass mobilization? Then yes - such a technique is needed. But I would also add sumo wrestlers with at least 400 kg of live weight!

[bayard]

Quote: Alex 22 22

Is there any evidence that the majority of basketball players will join the mass mobilization?

Don’t we walk the streets of our towns and villages? Don't we look around? On the average height of modern youth? I am 10 cm taller than my father, and I am already close to 60. All my nephews are taller than me, and some are even under 2 m. So the current generation is uncomfortable in old infantry fighting vehicles, it is uncomfortable to squeeze between the wheels of an armored personnel carrier, especially in all the equipment. And the experience of combat use and operation over many decades has shown that the need for waterborne armored vehicles is multiplied by an order of magnitude. But the requirements for high security for armored vehicles are constantly growing. So it is necessary to make TBTR and TBMP on a tank chassis and with a degree of protection close to MBT. And to start, take the chassis of old tanks from storage bases. The same T-64s, which will not be used exactly like tanks, could well become material for transformation into a TBTR. There are 2500 of these at storage bases. Rather than rot or be melted down, it’s better to go to TBTR.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alex 22 22

Is there any evidence that the majority of basketball players will join the mass mobilization? Then yes - such a technique is needed. But I would also add sumo wrestlers with at least 400 kg of live weight!

Apparently, because of such wits, people ride on armor. People are not sprats, under the armor of an infantry fighting vehicle/armored personnel carrier it is stuffy, cramped, dark, motion sick and you can’t see anything. And there is nowhere to store junk (although it can be used for armor). This needs to be eliminated. But this dramatically increases the booked volume. We need a new chassis for the increased weight.

[Alex 22 22]

So then you will decide, otherwise you (I don’t mean you specifically) Bradley have 3 meter targets. Then BMP 2 is not good. Either the Abrams are out of place due to weight, or the T 90 is not protected. This does not happen. If it is protected, then it is large and heavy; if it is poorly protected, then it is small and light.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alex 22 22

So then you will decide, otherwise you (I don’t mean you specifically) Bradley have 3 meter targets. Then BMP 2 is not good.

What is there to determine? We build what we can. We must have an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle for each motorized rifle squad. That is, there should be a lot of them, much more than tanks. For good booking of large volumes, we did not have a cheap, mass-produced powerful engine, and there were problems with the transmission. But this was not considered a big problem, since the main task of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles was to transport personnel through hotbeds of nuclear destruction, where there was no one to shoot. Keeps the fragments (so that it doesn’t happen like in 41, when due to dive bomber strikes one battalion reached the front from the regiment) - and okay. Now infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are not being used at all as planned, hence the complaints. But it’s not clear what to do: even tanks now only have frontal armor. I would make armor of such thickness that it could hold all wearable non-anti-tank weapons (up to 14.5 mm inclusive) from all angles and would allow the installation of modern remote sensing, and there would also be a standard mount for all sorts of screens, grilles, barbecues, additional armor, etc. .d. (DZ can also be hung on such a mount). The size of the landing compartment is like in a bus (this is a joke, but close to the truth) and always with screens on which there is a broadcast from external cameras (a cheap thing). The question is price, engine and transmission. The roof of the troop compartment should be equipped with hatches and seating areas (seats, handles, means to prevent accidental falls, etc.).

[Alex 22 22]

It remains to understand what dimensions and weight such an upgrade will have. So the TTX BMP was developed for a nuclear war in Europe. The motorized riflemen did not get out of their cars and drove towards the English Channel. And no one shot at them. Radiation. And now everything has changed.

[Alex 22 22]

Well, yes. Because of smart people like this. Tell me, an infantry fighting vehicle weighing over 60 tons and a height of at least 3 meters will be normal?! Bradley has a height of 5 meters and a weight of almost 3 tons. Whoever called it in VO: from a crawling target to a walking barn. And we need protection and 40-meter paratroopers. Then I absolutely agree with you. 2 tons and 60 meters in height - and this is the bare minimum.

[bk0010]

Quote: Observer2014

Everything will be fine. There won’t be any more floating crap without armor with incredible firepower.

And where will you get the engine and transmission for heavy equipment? No, you can, of course, take a tank one, with the corresponding price, resource and other problems, but then there will be very few infantry fighting vehicles, not like before, one per squad.

[Alex 22 22]

Quote: bk0010

And where will you get the engine and transmission for heavy equipment?

Well, it’s always more visible from the sofa. They made Namer in Israel, and now they want to return to wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. For many people here, as I see it, it’s not a problem where to get the engine and transmission. Well, there are still a ton of bridges, both road and railway, and the width of the railway track will have to be modernized, otherwise the size and weight of the equipment will not work. And also raise bridges and widen tunnel openings.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alex 22 22

They made Namer in Israel, and now they want to return to wheeled infantry fighting vehicles.

There is nothing to return to: Israel does not have infantry fighting vehicles, only armored personnel carriers. Even Namer is an armored personnel carrier.

[Alex 22 22]

Yes, this is an armored personnel carrier weighing 60 tons. Let's build one and call it, for example, Light Buggy, abbreviated as LG. Agree. It's not about the name. So the Merkava is not a tank, but, say, an SUV.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alex 22 22

Yes, this is an armored personnel carrier weighing 60 tons.

Exactly. The armored personnel carrier carries the infantry to the battlefield (well, it should do this), the infantry fighting vehicle goes with the infantry into battle. That is why they don’t put anything more expensive than a machine gun on an armored personnel carrier. The fact that we have a cannon installed on our armored personnel carrier, and the operators approve of it, means that they need an infantry fighting vehicle, not an armored personnel carrier.

Quote: Alex 22 22

So the Merkava is not a tank, but, say, an SUV.

Merkava - mobile pillbox. Yes, in appearance it is very similar to a tank, but in terms of tasks it is like a pillbox.

[Alex 22 22]

A model with cannon armament hit the camera lenses in early 2017. In addition to the automatic cannon, a 7,62 mm machine gun coaxial with it is installed in the turret, and there is also a 60 mm mortar, similar to those that began to be installed in the towers of the Merkava tank, starting with the Mk2 version.One of the latest upgrades of the Namer armored personnel carrier is a variant with an uninhabited tower, which housed the 30-mm automatic gun Mk44 Bushmaster II Article on VO March 13, 2020

[bk0010]

Quote: Alex 22 22

One of the latest upgrades of the Namer armored personnel carrier is a variant with an uninhabited tower, which housed the 30-mm automatic gun Mk44 Bushmaster II

Well? If they began to ride it in battle, then it is now an infantry fighting vehicle, if everything is as before, then it is still an armored personnel carrier, just more expensive. Everything is determined by the tasks being solved.

[Alex 22 22]

Quote: bk0010

Merkava - mobile pillbox. Yes, in appearance it is very similar to a tank, but in terms of tasks it is like a pillbox.

Abrams - Combat weight 66,8 tons - M1A2SEP v.3, Challenger - Combat weight, 62,5 tons And then what are they called tanks if they are pillboxes?

[bk0010]

Quote: Alex 22 22

And then what are they called tanks if they are pillboxes?

Dot or not is determined not by mass, but by the tasks being solved. Merkavas are the basis of strongholds; they do not go on raids behind enemy lines or fight tanks. Accordingly, their armor is distributed more evenly than that of the T-90 or Abrams, whose main armor is the forehead +/- 30 degrees. The Abrams are definitely not pillboxes: remember their march across Iraq, their tasks are quite tank-like. Initially (in terms of tasks and design) it was an anti-tank self-propelled gun with a rotating turret (to fight the T-72), now it is an MBT, albeit very heavy. The Challenger is a pure anti-tank self-propelled gun; it doesn’t even have normal HE shells.

[Huarabey]

They are laying down straws so that when Russia wins, they can say that this victory happened only thanks to NATO weapons.

[tralflot1832]

I suspect that in his inauguration speech the President of the Russian Federation will remember our Burevestnik with a kind word. It’s time. If this technology flies, someone in the West will feel sick. Let them try to make a nuclear-powered rocket out of our T90.

[former soldier]

Russia is capable of creating new types of weapons by studying the “advanced” systems of NATO countries that fell into the hands of the Russian military as trophies.

Let the NATO members themselves leave Ukraine and take away their “advanced” junk to the last bolt.

[Old Operator]

How they flaunt their own phantom coolness. They beat them, their “advanced equipment”, we beat them and we will beat them.

[Pravodel]

the appearance on the battlefield of Russian equipment, significantly superior to “advanced Western” equipment.

Everything is clear except for one thing: where did you see “advanced Western” equipment in Ukraine!? Everything that the bourgeoisie supplies to Ukraine is junk, complete or incomplete, but also junk.
Something tells me that even our old technology is already superior to the “advanced Western” technology presented in Ukraine...

[ximkim]

In the West, they are afraid that Russia will develop new types of weapons thanks to the study of Western military equipment that fell into the hands of the Russian army during the fighting in Ukraine. This was reported by the American portal Defense TV.

Accelerates.
This requires production, see
further than the Kremlin walls.
So hang up, just modernization.

[rocket757]

Defense TV: Russia could develop new weapons thanks to "advanced" NATO armored vehicles captured in Ukraine

. Of course, the sandpiper and the frog have better food in its swamp...
I wonder who this crap is aimed at? Over there, over the hill, everything is advanced, advanced... so why did all their stuff burn so cheerfully and cheerfully, is burning and will continue to burn? It’s not for nothing that all the “advanced” imported equipment was hidden in the rear!

[K-50]

Defense TV: Russia could develop new weapons thanks to "advanced" NATO armored vehicles captured in Ukraine

and how “advanced” is it? Well, maybe a few components and parts are a little better, but in the end it’s junk.

[alystan]

The most interesting thing would be if a march of prisoners was organized past this entire exposition, like on July 17, 1944. A separate group of foreign mercenaries against the backdrop of fascist crosses.
About a year before the Victory, as a historical parallel and a hint that they didn’t have much left!

[Scientist_]

Quote: Serhio250381

It's the same with Armata. But because they are expensive. That's the only reason they don't exist

Strange logic. What if they had been guided by it before the Second World War? The T-34 initially cost several times more than the BT, the most modern before the T-34. What would have happened if our T-34 and KV didn’t have them?

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Our equipment is better, NATO equipment is on fire, not ours...

[Mikhail Maslov]

Yesterday there was a news report. The guys showed evacuated Western equipment that was being restored. The conclusion made by our specialists: “They are delivering junk or unnecessary equipment to Ukraine.” By the way, about the demining vehicle based on the Abrashi, the conclusion is “not suitable. Trail from the UK ,optics from Italy, etc"

[KCA]

When I saw the photo of the IMR-2, I went nuts, you can launch it at the enemy without weapons, and they will run away, in the last unit where I served, there was a separate engineer battalion, there were monsters there too, but not like that, push the IMR- 2 of ours and IMR based on Abrash or Leo, it will be cooler than any transformers, but I know who will win

[Felix]

"They supply Ukraine with rubbish or unnecessary equipment"

Or simply the actual combat effectiveness is slightly different from that described in advertising brochures and beautiful videos

[78bor1973]

Design principles, in general, are not new; don’t take us for fools! And the Russian tank school will be cooler than the crafts of the “European house of pioneers”, and you are always welcome to look at the features!

[Laksamana besar]

The "Abrams" (it was completely burned out from the inside) was taken out from Berdychi to replenish the exhibition in Moscow; it will keep company with the "Leopard", which is already on Poklonka.

[SEVERIN]

The main danger of studying captured combat vehicles by Russian specialists is the appearance on the battlefield of Russian equipment that is significantly superior to “advanced Western”

- everything will be so, everything is as you wanted for your own money.

[Viktor Sergeev]

Yes, all this technique was studied a long time ago.

[bone1]

What “advanced” things did we capture there to study?

[the same doctor]

What to develop there? You need components, and you can assemble and develop anything from them. The only benefit from studying trophies: stupid bosses will see “how it is with them” and become a little wiser. Maybe they'll build some kind of factory...
.
The technologies at our disposal are excessive for victory, but the snobbery and complacency of the authorities is blocking everything. They “know” how to do it. Only in the end the guys fight with homemade products, and not with the fruits of brilliant designers under the control of the most brilliant MO.
And Nabiulina doesn’t give money. And what gives - Ivan’s Marats steal. And whoever interferes with theft, those on the plane are blown up...

[bars042]

+
"Oh, what else is there to rant about" !
Huh?
(this is about a short comment)!

[Junkman George]

The West fears that Russia will develop new models weapons thanks to the study of Western military equipment that fell into the hands of the Russian army during the fighting in Ukraine. This was reported by the American portal Defense TV.

I would hope that Russians are too smart to get wound into hi-tech crap that is unreliable and impossible to repair in the field.

[Viktor Sergeev]

Does anyone see “advanced” weapons? So what can our people take there? Base? No. Electronics? No. At most, ours will be able to evaluate armor resistance, firepower parameters,

[Skobaristan]

Quote: bayard

Well, why only the Swede? With the latest Leopolds, you can be curious about the tank, sight, and communications.

Like I said, this is just my opinion. There was hardly anything completely new in Leo that would interest us for imitation or copying. reservation can only be made to clarify the effectiveness of our weapons. But the Swede is still a rare and specific animal. But again, I repeat, these are all my speculative conclusions.

[Skobaristan]

Quote: also a doctor

And whoever interferes with theft, those on the plane are blown up

Already wrote, I will repeat. You are repeating the postulates of the Birds about the Second World War only in a new way: the Russian soldier wins in spite of.. This is either a complete misunderstanding of the topic or a deliberate lie

[mavrus]

Quote: Ovsigovets

Why didn’t you like the work of Leo and Abram in the ranks of the Armed Forces, as an example of their work???? in Western Europe, the Armed Forces are the only ones that have experience of a large, full-fledged war with a regular army and not the Papuans... I’m sure the EU armies do not have such experience

And what exactly is the difference... Is a Ukrainian, a German, an American or some Colombian “in the equipment”? The difference is in how he is prepared, and nationality and skin color do not affect the “difference.” Ukrainians have been there for more than two years They are fighting. It is unlikely that somewhere in the West there will be a sufficient number of military personnel with such combat experience. And all operations are planned, if not by the Western “friends” of the big-haired ones, then according to Western “patterns” and “standards”, taking into account the comments of their advisers. the question is that the West takes pity on the equipment, not the natives, and if it comes to the lives of its own soldiers, then both the “patterns” and “standards” will be adjusted
About the fact that at the initial stage (before adjustments) the result will not be much different

[bars042]

Here for Czech flag on the armor, to the photographer:

+

!!

[Yaroslav the Wise]

Even before the capture of the captured equipment, the Russian Armed Forces took it and tried to destroy it. You didn’t even have to study this technique: you just sent the drone and that’s it, *Leopard* kaput! *Abrams* kirdyk. *Morder* too.
None of the *newest* Western technology helped. So how will these technologies help the Russian defense industry?