Another time: weapons that were not useful in Ukraine

146
Another time: weapons that were not useful in Ukraine
Helicopters are one of the few types of weapons that have fully confirmed their relevance


Is the Northern Military District the largest conflict since 1945 or not?


Reflections in the article “Death of ATGM in Ukraine” on the pages of Military Review caused a mixed reaction from both the expert community and readers. The topic is interesting and pressing, and it is not at all limited to anti-tank missile systems.



The SVO forced a new look at many weapons systems, both in NATO countries and in Russia. A considerable amount of criticism was received in the article about the scale of events in the Northern Military District, which is the largest armed conflict since the Second World War.

Let's try to understand this thesis in more detail.

The first and main difference from all previous conflicts is the front line. The Iran-Iraq war mentioned by commentators took place on the border of two states with a length of 1 km. In the Northern Military District, only the front line reaches 600 thousand kilometers. This does not take into account the borders of Ukraine with Belarus, where both sides are forced to maintain serious forces and equip a line of defense.

The second difference from previous events is the active use of the entire arsenal, from pistols to ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Not to mention cruise missiles. Iran and Iraq, if they used something similar (for example, ballistic R-17s), then on a completely different scale.

Come on.

In the Iran-Iraq war, only towards the end was it possible to seriously increase the number of troops - by the beginning of 1987, the enemy armies totaled 1,65 million people. Not all soldiers fought at the front, it should be noted. And the conflict between Iraq and Iran began with an army of 200 thousand and 290 thousand, respectively.

By the end of the second year of the Northern Military District, no less than 617 thousand military personnel participated on the Russian side alone. Of course, this number is constantly increasing - the flow of patriotic volunteers does not dry out. No less, if not more, is participating on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. That is, in total, more than 1,2 million people are now fighting on the front of the Northern Military District. Taking into account the rotations and indirect involvement of military personnel in rear units, the number of troops involved on both sides can be safely increased to two million.


If we consider the Vietnam campaign of the United States as a guide, then it is necessary to understand the complete inequality of the opponents. Before the Yankee intervention, the North-South Vietnam War was, although bloody, a war of low intensity. When the United States entered the game, the battle between David and Goliath began. Even taking into account the support of the Soviet Union, North Vietnam was technically many times inferior to the American army, which could not but affect the ratio of losses between the parties. In the Northern Military District, Russia faced a fairly highly developed enemy, in many ways its equal. With a fundamental caveat: at the moment, the entire Ukrainian military machine is supported by Western assistance.

Based on the position that the Northern Military District is the largest armed conflict since 1945, the evolution of the weapons used is of particular interest. In particular, equipment that did not live up to expectations or was promptly replaced by other models weapons. This is also important because in the foreseeable future it is the air defense arsenal that defense departments around the world will focus on. As well as the tactics of using troops.

Minus weapon karma


The first candidates for departure are the high-altitude and relatively low-speed Bayraktar TB2.

The conflict in Ukraine clearly indicated the place of these persons. How well did the drums perform? drones in Nagorno-Karabakh, they turned out to be so unclear in the Northern Military District. With the exception, of course, of the very beginning of the special operation, when the parties to the conflict, so to speak, were getting used to each other.

The Bayraktar TB2 cannot be called a completely useless toy - the Turks can quite successfully fight with these drones, for example, against the Kurds. In general, a slow-moving unmanned target is more suitable for fighting partisans in slippers. But for a highly developed army with powerful air defense, such equipment is ineffective.

The only way out is to use Bayraktar TB2 at ultra-low altitudes, that is, work with the landing gear touching the tops of trees. But the machine, firstly, is completely unsuited for this, and secondly, the flight range in this case will tend to zero. Hanging a repeater somewhere nearby is a bad idea; it will be shot down, and as a result, the opponent will already lose two UAVs.


Working outside the enemy air defense zone has become the signature style of the special operation. The enemy is forced to work according to this algorithm; the Russian Aerospace Forces also fight in the same way. Perhaps, sometime in the future, the domestic Su-34 will have to take advantage of its unique maneuverability and attack aircraft skills, but for now the aircraft plays the role of a deliverer of long-range and high-precision weapons. It’s hard to call such “skills” superfluous, but they add a lot to the final cost of the aircraft.

The most interesting thing is that, without penetrating deep behind the front line, the Su-34’s onboard electronic warfare continues to improve. This suggests that the level of danger for aviation so high that simply to maintain the existing status quo one has to constantly improve.


If you rely on the experience of the SVO, the F-35 could become the most expensive weapons scam of the century

As a result, the famous maxim of air supremacy is now unattainable for any army in the world if it is fought against by an enemy of equal technical level. Russia has encountered this in Ukraine, most of whose territory is now under a no-access ban.

A seditious question arises: why create fifth-generation aircraft if they are doomed to be used as air launchers for gliding bombs and missiles?

As long as the ground is not under the boots of the allies, it is possible to work against partisans and backward armies from the air and with cheaper vehicles. Therefore, all 5th generation aircraft can so far be considered exclusively marketing toys - not one of them has proven its effectiveness in real combat. As long as electronic warfare and air defense reign on the battlefield, aircraft have little chance of survival.

There is an alternative opinion regarding the applicability of modern weapons in the Northern Military District. They say that as soon as the real mess with NATO begins, this is where all the super-expensive options will be needed.

But any conflict with conventional means with the NATO bloc is an extremely fleeting war. Aircraft of the 5th generation or Tanks limit parameters - the incident will inevitably and very quickly slide into an exchange of nuclear strikes. And it’s good if the parties stop at the tactical level and do not create a nuclear apocalypse.

In this regard, the concept of a tank with maximum parameters is questionable. In Soviet times, this was the T-64, now it is the T-14 Armata. As it turned out, none of them was adapted to the realities of wartime. The point, as always, is not about high performance characteristics, but about manufacturability and mass production.

You don't have to look far for an example. The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility. The Tiger was a kind of tank of extreme parameters for German industry, but it could not resist the tactics of using Soviet armored vehicles and their mass production.

Therefore, is a tank of limiting parameters necessary as a phenomenon at all?

Isn't it more efficient to ensure mass production of real warhorses - T-72, T-80 and T-90 of the latest modifications?

The question is rhetorical, and it has long been answered in Russia.


With stubbornness worthy of better use, the Americans continue to work on the KAZ. In the photo the latest modification of the Bradley M2A4E1 Iron Fist Light infantry fighting vehicle

Continuing about armored vehicles, one cannot help but recall the active protection systems that did not appear in the Northern Military District. It was also decided to skip Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip.

KAZ is generally a unique product: everyone talks about it, but few have seen its work outside of testing grounds. Another purely marketing project and a dead-end branch of progress. Unless, of course, active tank defense finds an antidote to FPV drones.

Somewhere in the distant future, amphibious armored vehicles may be useful. The special operation, like many other conflicts before it, showed the inadequacy of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which can move on water. Now, in the midst of the SVO, it is too late to change anything, but in the future this failure must be corrected. As well as the extremely risky idea of ​​landing military equipment from airplanes.

Let us repeat, while electronic warfare and air defense reign on the battlefields, there can be no talk of any airborne equipment. This option should become an atavism and a museum exhibit.

But what are we all talking about domestic military equipment? It's time to talk about Western technologies, the situation with which is even more beautiful.

Firstly, the West is far behind in air defense. Having at one time chosen the concept of destroying cruise missiles and aircraft with other aircraft, NATO members drove themselves into a dead end. The North Atlantic bloc is unable to provide Ukraine with adequate defense against Russian drones and cruise missiles. Which, as you know, “ended up long ago.”

Attempts to intercept hypersonic missiles have been a real failure. At the moment, there is not a single proven case of a Kinzhal or Zircon being hit from the ground.

What does this mean?

About the fact that the Americans do not have an antidote to such weapons. All ten US combat aircraft carriers automatically come under attack - the targets are very fat and slow-moving. This is perhaps the biggest headache for Pentagon analysts right now. The Jewish brothers delivered a bitter pill when they announced that “the American systems that operated against Iranian ballistic missiles during the attack on Israel largely failed - out of eight Iranian missiles, only two were intercepted.” We are talking about the Patriot air defense system of the latest modifications.


GLSDB is the most promising failure of American precision weapons in Ukraine.

Secondly, the massive GPS spoofing that covered the entire front line of the Russian Army seriously undermined the accuracy of the Western "wonderwaffens" - HIMARS, GLSDB and M982 Excalibur. In the case of the latter, they declare a drop in accuracy from 70 to 6 percent, that is, a tenfold decrease. Such discrepancies have to be leveled out with classical shells, which is why there is a chronic artillery shortage. And as long as there is GPS spoofing, the situation will only get worse.

Next in line is ATACMS, to which “Russians will be able to adapt in a very short period of time.” This was stated by Ivan Stupak, Advisor to the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security Issues. Maybe another plaintive bleat for the West, or maybe a dry statement of facts.

The redistribution of weapons arsenals is in full swing and, if anyone in the world wants to get a truly combat-ready, and not a ceremonial, army, it’s time to start closely studying the SVO. After all, this is where it’s being written right now story future. In every sense of this concept.
146 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    6 May 2024 04: 45
    Here, 5th generation aircraft or tanks of extreme parameters will not have time to show their merits - the incident will inevitably and very quickly slide into an exchange of nuclear strikes. And it’s good if the parties stop at the tactical level and will not create a nuclear apocalypse.
    belay They'll arrange it. No one will agree to lose. request
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 15: 25
      In order not to lose, we need an entire session of simultaneous play on 10 boards at once, all over the world. In fact, on the outskirts is not the main enemy.
      Red lines are needed in the Baltic and Finnish and Arctic-SMP, North Pole and Bering Sea. +Japan sea.
      Africa? Lat America? BSSR? Etc..

      And victory on the non-main theater outskirts is achieved by raising the children of janitors and truck drivers 15 - 20 years before the war. So there is no quick victory, because the windshield wipers were replaced by Tajiks. The long-range fighters are still their own.
      Demographics are few
  2. +29
    6 May 2024 05: 00
    Whatever the “conclusion” is, it is something on the verge of, if not stupidity, then a very weak understanding of the topic.
    The first candidates for departure are the high-altitude and relatively low-speed Bayraktar TB2. ... ....The only way out is to use Bayraktar TB2 at ultra-low altitudes, that is, work with the landing gear touching the tops of trees
    It was precisely the use of “Bays” that turned out to be most effective at maximum altitudes, but strictly as an optical reconnaissance device, with its very powerful optics, and not as an attack vehicle.


    The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility.

    What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?

    Therefore, all 5th generation aircraft can so far be considered exclusively marketing toys - none of them have proven their effectiveness in real combat
    Is it because the 5s were never used in battle? Although the participation of the Su-57 is mentioned, and it would not have been possible to shoot down ukrolitaki at a great distance, and they were shot down, with the La-7.

    In Soviet times, this was the T-64, now it is the T-14 Armata. As it turned out, none of them was adapted to the realities of wartime.
    Author, there is no need to confuse certain “realities” with a new factor, which has come as a surprise to the military all over the world. All tanks turned out to be unsuitable for the mass use of drones! But the T-64 is a massive and not the lousiest machine, and at the beginning of the Northern Military District, both it and the T-72 generally coped with their responsibilities.

    KAZ is generally a unique product: everyone talks about it, but few have seen its work outside of testing grounds. Another purely marketing project and a dead-end branch of progress.
    Here the hand is the face... Not only are there no KAZs in service with either the Armed Forces of Ukraine or our Army, but KAZs are also more promising against drones than electronic warfare, taking into account the automatic retention of a captured target by optics.

    The only thing the author is right about is that targeting high-precision projectiles solely for GPS guidance is not justified against an advanced enemy.
    1. +11
      6 May 2024 06: 11
      The only thing the author is right about is that targeting high-precision projectiles solely for GPS guidance is not justified against an advanced enemy.

      The author is not right about anything, there is a new video “filming/adjusting from a HIMARS drone”, I won’t drag it here, watch it...

      A seditious question arises: why create fifth-generation aircraft?
      This is the most beautiful thing in the article, IMHO. Even the “headache of Pentagon analysts” is resting.
      1. +1
        6 May 2024 06: 13
        Quote: Wildcat
        The author is not right about anything, see the new video “filming/adjusting from a HIMARS drone”, I won’t drag it here, watch this...

        I'm strictly talking about shells.
        1. +7
          6 May 2024 06: 17
          It's a difficult question. There are a number of videos under the heading “using Excalibur”, but it is impossible to draw any conclusion, IMHO. “And as long as there is GPS spoofing, the situation will only get worse” - the question is the volume and area of ​​such spoofing, IMHO.
          1. +3
            6 May 2024 06: 23
            Quote: Wildcat
            It's a difficult question. There are a number of videos under the heading “using Excalibur”, but it is impossible to draw any conclusion, IMHO.

            What's so complicated about that? You can’t fit much into an artillery shell, and if the expensive version starts falling with the accuracy of a regular blank, then it’s a bad investment. And I think that the blind spot is a couple of tens of kilometers away. in front of the covered object is enough.
    2. +3
      6 May 2024 07: 06
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It was precisely the use of "Bai" that turned out to be most effective at maximum altitudes, but strictly as an optical reconnaissance apparatus, with

      And even so, they were all sent to the “hangar”. Small UAVs, such as our Orlans, turned out to be more effective
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      T-34-85 was inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four

      Was the T-34/85 our most popular? And it was inferior to the latest modifications of the same “four” in terms of armor thickness and the quality of communications and optics.
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      But the T-64 is a massive and not the lousiest machine, and at the beginning of the Northern Military District, both it and the T-72 generally coped with their responsibilities.

      But, alas, the Northern Military District decided the dispute in favor of the T-72
      1. +6
        6 May 2024 07: 30
        Quote: svp67

        And even so, they were all sent to the “hangar”. Small UAVs, such as our Orlans, turned out to be more effective

        That's right, because they were knocked out from the LBS itself as drums. However, the few remaining are used as scouts.

        Quote: svp67

        Was the T-34/85 our most popular? And it was inferior to the latest modifications of the same “four” in terms of armor thickness and the quality of communications and optics.
        Well, name a Soviet tank that was more widely produced in 1944/45. And the later modifications of the four were simplified, even to the point of the absence of mechanized drives for turret rotation - they were turned by hand. And the armor is formally thicker, but taking into account the reduction, and significant, of properties - that’s what it is formally.
        Superiority in weapons, comparable characteristics of security and combat control (sights, observation optics and walkie-talkie), and the aforementioned superiority in mobility. And there is nowhere near the nonsense that the author has.

        Quote: svp67
        But, alas, the Northern Military District decided the dispute in favor of the T-72
        So it’s decided that it’s come to the T-62? Both T-64 and T-72 were and are used taking into account the circumstances.
      2. +13
        6 May 2024 07: 56
        Vladimir. It was not the Northern Military District that decided in favor of the T-72, but the economy. It’s just that the numbers of T-72 and T-90M in the troops are not comparable. Before the start of the SVO, T-90Ms were “driven” mainly for export and, as a result, their number in the Indian army exceeded their number in the Russian army. These are the realities of “brilliant” solutions.
        1. -12
          6 May 2024 08: 17
          Vladimir. It was not the Northern Military District that decided in favor of the T-72, but the economy. It’s just that the numbers of T-72 and T-90M in the troops are not comparable. Before the start of the SVO, T-90Ms were “driven” mainly for export and, as a result, their number in the Indian army exceeded their number in the Russian army. These are the realities of “brilliant” solutions.

          Who cares. Is it the ATGM or the drone that doesn’t pick it up? Tanks are everything. Yes
          1. +2
            6 May 2024 10: 07
            Quote: Arzt
            Tanks are everything.

            "Tsar-Grill" - is it based on a moped, in your opinion?
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 10: 58
              Tanks are everything.

              "Tsar-Grill" - is it based on a moped, in your opinion?

              Vladimir, you understand that this is a surrogate. There can be no question of this “barbecue” fulfilling the role that a tank should perform in battle.
              1. +2
                6 May 2024 14: 28
                Yes Yes...
                How many times have we heard “you don’t understand”...
                How is this a ship without sails?
                What's a cannon without cannonballs?
                Going into battle without a saber and bayonet?
                How is this a plane with just a couple of wings?
                How is this a plane without propellers?
                Another “you don’t understand”???
                1. -1
                  6 May 2024 15: 49
                  Yes Yes...
                  How many times have we heard “you don’t understand”...
                  How is this a ship without sails?
                  What's a cannon without cannonballs?
                  Going into battle without a saber and bayonet?
                  How is this a plane with just a couple of wings?
                  How is this a plane without propellers?
                  Another “you don’t understand”???

                  How to turn the gun? Review? He's nothing anyway. Patency. Rescue of the crew. Weight. Replacing the psaltery is trivial...
              2. +1
                6 May 2024 16: 49
                Quote: Arzt
                Vladimir, you understand that this is a surrogate

                A surrogate is a specific execution of that barn, from what was at hand, and a tank with a jammed turret. But more importantly, such a solution would not work on anything other than a tank, because with such roof protection there is nothing except a tank. The roof of an infantry fighting vehicle, or anything else, will not hold the cumulative jet of a shaped charge fired on the grill.

                Quote: Arzt
                There can be no question of this “barbecue” fulfilling the role that a tank should perform in battle.
                As it turned out, battles are different, and it is certainly not very difficult to provide a significant sector of fire with specially designed protection.
                1. 0
                  6 May 2024 16: 55
                  As it turned out, battles are different, and it is certainly not very difficult to provide a significant sector of fire with specially designed protection.

                  There was almost no room left for direct fire. The art will do the rest. These guys are collective farmers, trying different things, but the effect is negligible, as for me. It’s not worth the effort to make such a monster on stream.

                  Another thing is to try to solve the problem at a high technological level, such as composite armor everywhere, or a sophisticated KAZ. But this is decades of serious work.
                  1. +1
                    6 May 2024 17: 06
                    Quote: Arzt
                    There was almost no room left for direct fire.

                    For some reason there are a lot of videos where tanks are hitting fortifications, and even infantry fighting vehicles/infantry fighting vehicles are being watered during the attack.

                    Quote: Arzt
                    Another thing is to try to solve the problem at a high technological level, such as composite armor everywhere, or a sophisticated KAZ.

                    Armata is almost a ready-made solution. Why? Because it already has unprecedented roof protection, all that remains is to manipulate it taking into account experience, and there is no need to be puzzled by crew access to the tower, which means you can maintain a sane silhouette.
                  2. 0
                    10 May 2024 19: 51
                    Perhaps it’s worth trying out the layout of the Isu-152, with modifications to the stern and installation of anti-aircraft machine guns (cannons with radar) on the roof?
              3. 0
                7 May 2024 18: 51
                and who said that the tank now has the same role as a hundred years ago!? I didn’t notice the enemy’s tank wedges or deep raid envelopments. The tank in this conflict is more likely to provide operational cover for attack aircraft when entering enemy positions.
                The strategy for using tanks is probably being looked at at all headquarters now, but it is too early to perceive it as an atavism.
      3. +3
        6 May 2024 08: 44
        Was the T-34-85 our most popular? And it was inferior to the latest modifications of the “four” in terms of armor thickness and the quality of communications and optics.

        Yes, the T-34-85 was the most popular tank of the last year of the war (almost 17 thousand copies).
        Never inferior to the “four” either in absolute or in terms of armor thickness (90 mm versus 80 mm, and the side is 45 mm versus 30 mm) or in terms of communications and optics (Pz-IVJ is generally a blind tank) .
        1. -1
          6 May 2024 12: 41
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          (90 mm vs 80 mm,

          How fast, how fast? Where? The T-34/85 has a turret front - yes, but what about the hull? As it was 45 mm, it remains so. Against 80 mm for the four.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          not by means of communications and optics
          These are outright fairy tales. The quality of German optics was higher, which made it possible to see targets on the battlefield for half an hour more at sunrise and sunset, that is, at dusk. It turns out to be a whole hour more, due to the better brightness of the optics..
          About the quality of communication on our radio stations during the war years - this is generally a separate pain
          1. +2
            6 May 2024 14: 46
            The quality of communications since 1944 has been parity, with an advantage in the command level due to Lend-Lease.
            Optics: back in 1943, our sight was recognized as the best for combat at a distance of up to 1200 m, and beyond that it’s not particularly necessary. And check out the review from the Pz-IVJ - the tank is simply blind.
            Turret front armor 90 mm versus 50 mm; the front of the hull is 45 mm at an angle of 60 degrees versus 80 mm at an angle of 8 degrees.
            The side is 45 mm at an angle of 45 degrees versus 30+5 mm at an angle of zero degrees. By the way, it was precisely because of this screen, which is useless against an 85-mm cannon, that the surveillance devices were removed.
            And in general, this hearse, the object of Double G’s admiration, is simply an anachronism from 1943.
    3. +9
      6 May 2024 10: 14
      The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility.

      What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?
      As far as I understand, the author meant the Tigers and Panthers, and not the “four”. His message is precisely that no super-duper tank in limited quantities will be able to solve any large-scale problems, and a large number of simpler and cheaper tanks will cope with these tasks much better.
      1. -7
        6 May 2024 10: 32
        Quote: Poplar
        As far as I understand, the author meant the Tigers and Panthers, and not the “four”

        If the author does not know which vehicle the enemy had the most massive, then his further construction is worthless. In addition, the T-34-85 was not inferior to the first Tiger and Panthers in armament.
    4. -1
      6 May 2024 11: 47
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?

      Armor protection. The 45 mm hull in 1944 is pierced by everyone and from all distances. At the end of the war, the firing range of the German anti-tank gun at the T-34-85 was no longer determined by the probability of penetrating the armor, but by the probability of hitting the tank with the first shots.
      Well, plus the traditional combination - engine-transmission-suspension.
      1. 0
        6 May 2024 17: 00
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Armor protection. The 45 mm hull in 1944 is pierced by everyone and from all distances. At the end of the war, the firing range of the German anti-tank gun at the T-34-85 was no longer determined by the probability of penetrating the armor, but by the probability of hitting the tank with the first shots.

        And what does VET have to do with it? The four confidently penetrated with an 85 mm gun at real battle distances. And the hit had to be in the body, “for any distance.”

        Quote: Alexey RA
        Well, plus the traditional combination - engine-transmission-suspension.
        What's wrong with them for the T-34-85? Reliability and ease of use have increased dramatically compared to the original ones.
        1. 0
          6 May 2024 17: 41
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          And what does VET have to do with it?

          And despite the fact that the main enemy of the tank in WWII was the anti-tank gun. To meet enemy tanks, you had to try. Yes, and Order No. 325 of October 16.10.1942, XNUMX clearly and unambiguously prescribed: tanks do not fight tanks.
          4. Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.

          Therefore, the armor protection of tanks must first of all be considered from the point of view of protection against anti-tank missiles. For the T-34-85, the main enemy of the end of the war was towed and self-propelled anti-tank missiles of 75 mm caliber.
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          What's wrong with them for the T-34-85?

          And with them everything is almost the same as before. 32-34 kg on the levers when maneuvering in first gear, the diesel engine eats oil like crazy, plus with the new turret there is an overload on the front rollers. It’s good that at least the new gearbox allows you to move in battle at speeds above 14 km/h.
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Reliability and ease of use have increased dramatically compared to the original ones.

          Well, with such a low base, it’s no wonder it increases sharply - You remember the multi-page list of shortcomings based on the test results of the T-34 of the first series
          1. +1
            6 May 2024 17: 55
            I’ll repeat the question - what does anti-tank guns have to do with it when it comes to comparison with enemy tanks, directly and unambiguously:
            The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility.


            Quote: Alexey RA
            For the T-34-85, the main enemy of the end of the war was towed and self-propelled anti-tank missiles of 75 mm caliber.
            Is that why the 34s defeated the Royal Tigers?

            Quote: Alexey RA
            And with them everything is almost the same as before. 32-34 kg on the levers when maneuvering in first gear, the diesel engine eats oil like crazy, plus with the new turret there is an overload on the front rollers. It’s good that at least the new gearbox allows you to move in battle at speeds above 14 km/h.
            Well, that's demagoguery. The sharply SHARPLY increased reliability and survivability of all MTG elements is not “almost the same as before”! No need for scary fairy tales.
            1. +1
              6 May 2024 18: 45
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              I’ll repeat the question - what does anti-tank guns have to do with it when it comes to comparison with enemy tanks, directly and unambiguously:
              The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility.

              And where is the battle between tanks? Here is a general comparison of tanks in their natural habitat, which I already wrote about.
              You won’t, from comparing, for example, tank destroyers, conclude that they must be compared exclusively in terms of combat with each other?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Is that why the 34s defeated the Royal Tigers?

              5. When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.

              And so it happened: first, on August 11, the 501st Shverepantserabtailung rested on the position of the 112th Infantry Division, reinforced by the 235th and 1076th Iptap, which held out until mid-day, but were forced to retreat. And the next day the advancing CT scanners were from advantageous position (ambush on the flank) were fired upon by a pair of T-34s of the 53rd Tank Brigade. At the same time, the 97th Infantry Division, anti-tank crews and artillerymen somehow fell out of the classic legend of the battle of David and Goliath, who came under the main attack of the German group from the 16th Panzerdivision, reinforced by the same CTs from the 501st.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Well, that's demagoguery. The sharply SHARPLY increased reliability and survivability of all MTG elements is not “almost the same as before”!

              А convenience where did it go?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Reliability and convenience work has increased sharply compared to the original ones.

              So ease of use it remained at the same level. The situation was corrected only on the T-44, in which the forces on the levers dropped almost threefold.
              1. -1
                7 May 2024 09: 11
                Quote: Alexey RA

                And where is the battle between tanks? Here is a general comparison of tanks in their natural habitat, which I already wrote about.

                And you already added “about the fight”, inadvertently.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility.
                “By all parameters” somehow passes your consciousness? Or are you stubbornly moving away from this?


                Quote: Alexey RA
                You won’t, from comparing, for example, tank destroyers, conclude that they must be compared exclusively in terms of combat with each other?
                Something really intelligible... But in your opinion, parameters are needed only in “combat”, and in the “natural environment”, by the way, for German tanks this environment was hardly very different from Soviet ones, parameters are not needed?

                Quote: Alexey RA
                And the next day, the advancing CTs were fired upon from an advantageous position (ambush on the flank) by a pair of T-34s of the 53rd Tank Brigade. At the same time, the 97th Infantry Division, anti-tank crews and artillerymen somehow fell out of the classic legend of the battle of David and Goliath, who came under the main attack of the German group from the 16th Panzerdivision, reinforced by the same CTs from the 501st.

                Eee? The T-34-85 took an advantageous position and used noticeably more powerful weapons than the T-34-76, which were unlikely to have anything good in this battle. Like, for example, T-4 against Is - not even 3, but 2M.


                Quote: Alexey RA
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Well, that's demagoguery. The sharply SHARPLY increased reliability and survivability of all MTG elements is not “almost the same as before”!

                Where has the convenience gone?

                Quote: Alexey RA
                So the ease of use remains at the same level. The situation was corrected only on the T-44, in which the forces on the levers dropped almost threefold.

                Do I understand correctly that in your opinion, only the work of the driver’s mechanic is taken into account in the composition of the tank’s crew? Continue further?
              2. 0
                7 May 2024 12: 23
                So the ease of use remains at the same level. The situation was corrected only on the T-44, in which the forces on the levers dropped almost threefold.

                My father-in-law, Candidate of Masters in water polo, said that the Bulgarian 34 with a 580 hp engine. With. He liked the controls much better than the T-55.
    5. +6
      6 May 2024 12: 07
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Whatever the “conclusion” is, it’s something on the verge

      It's right. But the whole history of military equipment (the whole Karl!) goes exactly along this path, i.e. is developing and in my memory only battleships have “gone” into history, and even then they have either disappeared or are going through a certain stage. Outdated tactics and strategies for using certain means are leaving the battlefield (javelins and others did not displace tanks from the battlefield, but only changed the tactics of use), and they are not leaving, again, they are being improved, and technology is developing, otherwise they would have shot arrows .
      PS: And these articles about the uselessness of technology development, crying about unnecessary exorbitant funding and the supposed uselessness of modern weapons (5th generation, KAZi, etc.) bring to mind that someone is actively trying to slow this down, and here you think about the goals kind of propaganda.
      1. +1
        6 May 2024 12: 25
        Let's also take into account that development does not imply purely evolution.
        Otherwise, we would have rapid-fire arrow throwers and armor made of (let's say) titanium.
        New types of weapons with a different operating principle are being invented.
        And, let’s say, a certain limit can be reached, after which direct evolution becomes meaningless: the cost of increasing efficiency is exorbitant, and the gain is negligible.
    6. 0
      6 May 2024 14: 26
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?

      So they don’t remember about the Pz4, everyone just compares the medium T-34 with the heavy Tiger\Tiger-2\Panther (the Mems even call them light wedges, according to our classification they are heavy tanks).
      But yes, the most popular non-Meth one is the Pz4, but it is not fashionable (because there is no possibility, it is one thing to compare the 34k with mammoths ala Tiger2\Mouse, and another with the inferior (but of the same class) Pz4).
      1. -1
        6 May 2024 18: 48
        Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
        So they don’t remember about the Pz4, everyone just compares the medium T-34 with the heavy Tiger\Tiger-2\Panther (the Mems even call them light wedges, according to our classification they are heavy tanks).

        Is this according to the same classification according to which the “Valentine”, booked no worse than the HF, was considered light by us? wink
        1. +1
          6 May 2024 18: 51
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Is this according to the same classification according to which the “Valentine”, booked no worse than the HF, was considered light by us?

          This is different, you need to understand. wink
          The British had “infantry tanks”. (and it seems that only armor-piercing shells are used)
          Well, they didn’t know what to do with this (but they shouldn’t refuse, it was not the time, there was no time for fat).
        2. 0
          9 May 2024 00: 47
          Which version of the Valentine is at least roughly comparable in armor to the KV-1, please tell me?
    7. +1
      6 May 2024 15: 27
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?

      In the last year of the war, the most popular German vehicle was most likely the Panther.
      1. 0
        13 May 2024 02: 57
        Quote: DenVB
        In the last year of the war, the most popular German vehicle was most likely the Panther.
        call the mass "Panther"...?! Isn't this an exaggeration...?! belay
        at its production cost...
        1. -1
          13 May 2024 03: 00
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          call the mass "Panther"...?! Isn't this an exaggeration...?! belay
          at its production cost...

          I don’t know about the cost, but already in 1944 more Panthers were produced than fours.
    8. +3
      6 May 2024 16: 23
      I’ll also add: the experience of the Northern Military District, of course, should and will be studied. But you need to understand that so far tactics in the Northern Military District are quite limited both by the theater of operations and by the forces and abilities of the enemy. And “it’s not evening yet.” Therefore, I would not write off highly mobile lightly armored (including amphibious) equipment. Like other types of weapons that have shown little success in the Northern Military District.
      In the same winter of 1941, cavalry corps turned out to be an effective weapon, including against Wehrmacht tank corps. Sometimes mobility can mean a lot.
      1. 0
        13 May 2024 03: 00
        Quote from shikin
        In the same winter of 1941, cavalry corps turned out to be an effective weapon, including against Wehrmacht tank corps. Sometimes mobility can mean a lot.

        recourse wait until winter and strike with cavalry...?!! winked
    9. 0
      6 May 2024 21: 42
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?

      This is the traditional mantra that armata is not needed because it is expensive and complex, we need something cheaper and older like the T-72. Although the T-34 at the beginning of the Second World War was much cruder than the Armata at the beginning of the Northern Military District, and it only had one prototype in quantity, and made it extremely protected, it could only be penetrated by an 88 mm gun, which was never a tank gun. The T-72 and its derivatives are more like the T-26, it was also simpler and cheaper
      1. 0
        7 May 2024 05: 04
        Quote from alexoff
        The T-34 at the beginning of the Second World War was much cruder than the armata at the beginning of the Northern Military District, and it only had one prototype, which made it extremely protected
        And the number made on 1941-06-22 was in the hundreds, and it only penetrated poorly with the then standard tank/anti-tank German 3,7 cm. The Germans quickly rearmed the PzKw III and anti-tank tanks with 5,0cm, which had much less problems penetrating even inclined 45mm armor, and could penetrate the vertical side without any problems. And the long-barreled 7.5cm guns that soon appeared on the PzKw IV had no problems at all from all angles at all distances in real combat. So let's be silent for a minute in memory of our tank crews, who knew all this and nevertheless went into battle.
        Quote from alexoff
        88 mm gun, which is never a tank
        "Tiger" is surprised by this statement.
        Quote from alexoff
        The T-72 and its derivatives are more like the T-26, it was also simpler and cheaper
        At the time of the start of production, the T-26 was practically at the maximum complexity that Soviet industry could master at that time, and therefore was very expensive, no more expensive than the T-34-85 by the end of the war. And it became obsolete at the very moment when the Germans rolled out the 3,7-cm-Pak onto the battlefield in Spain.
        1. 0
          7 May 2024 17: 18
          And the number made on 1941-06-22 was in the hundreds
          and they threatened to rivet a couple of thousand of their armature, but everything was limited to upgrading 30 T-90A to T-90M and fifty T-72 to T-72B3 per year, this is how they are preparing for world war in 2020.
          poorly it penetrated only with the standard at that time German tank/anti-tank 3,7 cm.
          this is called caring for the protection of the crew, they wouldn’t push more, but progress did not stand still, the guns also grew. Similarly, armata are much more protected than our tanks, but I am sure that they are not invulnerable.
          "Tiger" is surprised by this statement.
          the tiger received this gun based on the results of its use
          At the time of the start of production, the T-26 was practically at the maximum complexity that Soviet industry could master at that time, and therefore was very expensive, no more expensive than the T-34-85 by the end of the war. And it became obsolete at the very moment when the Germans rolled out the 3,7-cm-Pak onto the battlefield in Spain.
          the basic T-72 was also not free, and became obsolete when a jovelin was made specifically against it. But the Cold War ended and both weapons and protective equipment were mostly abandoned; there are no tank trendsetters now
      2. 0
        13 May 2024 22: 05
        Quote from alexoff
        Although the T-34 at the beginning of the Second World War was much cruder than the Armata at the beginning of the Northern Military District, and it had only one prototype, and made it extremely protected, it could only be penetrated by an 88 mm cannon

        Really? In fact, the main anti-tank gun of the Wehrmacht throughout the war was the 75mm Pak40, which could cope with almost the entire line of Soviet and Western armored vehicles.
        1. 0
          14 May 2024 13: 33
          Throughout the war since 1939, when work began on the T-34? When did she appear at the front?
    10. +1
      8 May 2024 00: 00
      I agree with you, except for the GPS points, they are a problem for pots (GPS spoofing). The states have radio reconnaissance satellites for this, and if they need them, they will quickly locate the position of the emitters, and yes, our knocked-out ones will quickly make up for it, but the output of the emitter, even for 10 minutes, means that volleys of haimars within 10 minutes will be effective.
  3. -2
    6 May 2024 05: 12
    Having at one time chosen the concept of destroying cruise missiles and aircraft with other aircraft, NATO members drove themselves into a dead end. The North Atlantic bloc is unable to provide Ukraine with adequate defense against Russian drones and cruise missiles.
    Well, that’s if you don’t pay attention to the fact that of the hundreds of cruise missiles and drones launched by Iran almost simultaneously, nothing, even the word “at all,” reached targets in Israel. And they were shot down mainly by aircraft over the territory of Iraq and Jordan. Although something went to the share of the anti-aircraft gunners.
    But Ukraine is not Israel, just as Russia is not Iran. The value of Ukraine is much less in the eyes of the West, and raising military aircraft to act directly against Russia somehow does not look like a good idea, since there may be a response, because, I’m not too lazy to repeat, Russia is not Iran. It’s easier and cheaper to endure the hysteria of Zelensky and Kuleba about “how is it that Israel was protected, but we, who are so wonderful???”
    1. -1
      6 May 2024 21: 45
      Quote: Nagan
      Well, that’s if you don’t pay attention to the fact that of the hundreds of cruise missiles and drones launched by Iran almost simultaneously, nothing, even the word “at all,” reached targets in Israel. And they were shot down mainly by aircraft over the territory of Iraq and Jordan. Although something went to the share of the anti-aircraft gunners.

      So Iran warned everyone in advance to raise geraniums in advance to intercept aircraft. I suppose they talked for a long time about how you would intercept them there, and we would shoot like last time at the American base, and that there would be no casualties
  4. +5
    6 May 2024 05: 33
    As a result, the famous maxim of air supremacy is now unattainable for any army in the world if it is fought against by an enemy of equal technical level.

    Probably the Western military did not notice this. Because they continue to be confident in the possibility of achieving air supremacy.
    Conquering this dominance is largely a matter of reconnaissance and the number of all sorts of Storm Shadows and various AGMs. And there is no doubt that when the military-industrial complex is deployed, they will produce more and better.
    And in general - the main question is - what time perspectives are we talking about? Here and now? Tomorrow? In 5-10 years?
    1. +2
      6 May 2024 10: 09
      They have reason to be confident. here you are completely right. This includes complete control over the air situation, almost 100% control over the ground situation, an absolute advantage in means of destroying air defense systems, and we are talking about the number of anti-aircraft missiles, simulator missiles, and electronic warfare aircraft. All Russian air defense systems (except for the S-500) were delivered abroad, all the performance characteristics of the systems were removed, and they were flown.
  5. +9
    6 May 2024 05: 45
    Based on the position that the Northern Military District is the largest armed conflict since 1945,

    No, not the largest. In terms of the number of manpower on both sides, it is inferior to the war in Korea in the 50s of the last century.
    1. 0
      6 May 2024 07: 50
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

      No, not the largest. In terms of the number of manpower on both sides, it is inferior to the war in Korea in the 50s of the last century.

      I wouldn't say that. Quite comparable conflicts. And in terms of the number of victims and the number of destroyed heavy equipment (tanks) it is inferior to that in Ukraine.
      1. +1
        6 May 2024 11: 56
        They should be measured not against tanks, but at least against aircraft carriers (just kidding).
        Everything is at your discretion. A little about the losses in the war on the 38th parallel.
        Republic of Korea - 1,62 million people DPRK - 1,738 million people.
        USA - 36 people killed, over 914 thousand wounded and 92 thousand missing.
        The rest of the UN force is 16 people.
        China - 390 thousand people.
        USSR - 315 people.
        1. +1
          6 May 2024 12: 08
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Republic of Korea - 1,62 million people DPRK - 1,738 million people.

          In the Korean War? Wikipedia reports: Republic of Korea - 137 thousand dead, DPRK - 112 thousand dead.
          1. 0
            6 May 2024 14: 30
            Quote: Stas157
            Wikipedia reports

            Linking to biased Wikipedia is like that.
            For a long time now only Westerners and soy cucks write there.
            1. +3
              6 May 2024 15: 10
              What are your sources?
              1. -3
                6 May 2024 15: 12
                Quote: t7310
                What are your sources?

                It is not necessary to list your diet to communicate that feces are inedible and hazardous to health.
          2. 0
            6 May 2024 18: 19
            Perhaps these are only combat losses, medical losses, missing persons and civilians were not taken into account. The Koreans themselves estimate the total losses at three million, or 10 percent of the inhabitants of the peninsula.
        2. 0
          11 May 2024 12: 02
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Republic of Korea - 1,62 million people DPRK - 1,738 million people.

          That you got excited.
          In Vietnam, the total losses were 1.5-4 million. So it went on for 20 years
  6. IVZ
    +10
    6 May 2024 05: 47
    The saddest thing about this article is the author’s unshakable confidence in his conclusions. I simply don’t remember a more unprofessional article
  7. +4
    6 May 2024 06: 18
    Where did the author put the Korean and Vietnam wars? Or according to his chronology, were they before 1945? Or does he not consider them wars at all? Or are they not big enough for him? Or did they not affect the weapons systems? And, finally, why does the author make strategic conclusions in the middle of a ford, without waiting to reach the shore?
  8. +4
    6 May 2024 06: 37
    So the war is not over yet, but there is already enough material for analysis for some conclusions.
    The most obvious... The country's armed forces must develop HARMONIOUSLY, COMPREHENSIVELY, there are absolutely no superfluous, unnecessary weapons, although at some stages some weapons act as the main striking, necessary force!
    Thanks to our ancestors, they showed high competence on most issues of the development of the country's armed forces!
    1. 0
      10 May 2024 18: 13
      there are absolutely no unnecessary, unnecessary weapons

      Well, the value of tanks has become even less than it was ten years ago, so extra types have appeared that have lost their former relevance
      1. 0
        10 May 2024 21: 22
        Heavy armored vehicles... a powerful, mobile, well-protected weapon will not lose its relevance for a long time!
  9. 0
    6 May 2024 07: 46
    You can talk for a long time, but everything will fall into place when all this mess is over! Much will be revised, improved or removed. Victory is still far away, everything can turn upside down.
  10. +1
    6 May 2024 08: 01
    The special operation, like many other conflicts before it, showed the inadequacy of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which can move on water.
    Author, where does this conclusion come from?
    1. -1
      6 May 2024 08: 20
      The special operation, like many other conflicts before it, showed the inadequacy of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which can move on water.
      Author, where does this conclusion come from?

      Rather, the uselessness of this function. Was there at least one application in SVO? What will happen to them if they are buried across the Dnieper, somewhere in the Krynok region? wink
      1. +2
        6 May 2024 09: 26
        Quote: Arzt
        Rather, the uselessness of this function. Was there at least one application in SVO?

        Not yet. But the SVO is not over yet. I agree that not all armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles should have this feature. But some part must still have such an opportunity. War is unpredictable and, with such a lengthy LBS, anything can happen.
        1. +1
          6 May 2024 09: 50
          Not yet. But the SVO is not over yet. I agree that not all armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles should have this feature. But some part must still have such an opportunity. War is unpredictable and, with such a lengthy LBS, anything can happen.

          Logically.
          If the combat situation makes it possible to deploy pontoons, buoyancy is not needed.
          If there is no such possibility (if the enemy has air supremacy, or shelling of the crossing), then floating infantry fighting vehicles are even more corpses.

          And in life, who in their right mind would climb into this box and swim in it? wink
          1. +3
            6 May 2024 10: 10
            Quote: Arzt
            then floating infantry fighting vehicles are even more corpses.

            Why immediately - corpses. On the shoulders of a retreating enemy, crossing a river 10 - 15 meters wide with floating infantry fighting vehicles - armored personnel carriers and capturing a bridgehead is really something incredible? Taking into account the fact that there are quite a lot of such rivers on the route of the northeastern district.
            Quote: Arzt

            And in life, who in their right mind would climb into this box and swim in it?

            Really. Well, who in their right mind would climb into an enemy platoon stronghold with an AK to their advantage. After all, he will be met there by a machine gun and a dozen AKs and grenades. But, you won’t believe it, they come and capture.
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 11: 02
              Really. Well, who in their right mind would climb into an enemy platoon stronghold with an AK to their advantage. After all, he will be met there by a machine gun and a dozen AKs and grenades. But, you won’t believe it, they come and capture.

              So there is nowhere to go. And here, to climb into this coffin? We see no attempts to sail on armored personnel carriers. Even empty ones, without landing forces. All normal people sail on boats, as they should.
              1. 0
                6 May 2024 11: 11
                Quote: Arzt
                All normal people sail on boats, as they should.

                Yes, the advanced assault group has them, boats, in their pocket. Floating infantry fighting vehicles are standing in the bushes, and attack aircraft are waiting for boats to bring them. Bravo.
            2. 0
              6 May 2024 11: 03
              Why immediately - corpses. On the shoulders of a retreating enemy, crossing a river 10 - 15 meters wide with floating infantry fighting vehicles - armored personnel carriers and capturing a bridgehead is really something incredible? Taking into account the fact that there are quite a lot of such rivers on the route of the northeastern district.

              Perhaps the only use case. Maybe there is a point, I agree.
              1. 0
                6 May 2024 11: 19
                Quote: Arzt

                Perhaps the only use case. Maybe there is a point, I agree.

                That's what I'm talking about. Therefore, in motorized rifle battalions they must be retained, even if only a little. I don’t know, maybe 3 - 5, and the rest may be without a swimming function. In the sense of reducing the cost of their production and maintenance.
            3. 0
              6 May 2024 14: 59
              Why immediately - corpses. On the shoulders of a retreating enemy, crossing a river 10 - 15 meters wide with floating infantry fighting vehicles - armored personnel carriers and capturing a bridgehead is really something incredible?

              Let’s just say it’s probable if you are lucky enough to ride onto a section of the river that meets the following requirements:
              - the presence of relatively flat surfaces at the water entry and exit points
              banks without side slopes and other obstacles;
              - the steepness of the descent when entering the water should not exceed:
              a) on hard soils: in the above-water part –30°;
              in underwater – 15°;
              b) on soft or loose soils: in the above-water part – 25°;
              underwater - 15°;
              - the steepness of the climb when exiting the water should not exceed:
              a) on hard soils: in the above-water part – 25°;
              in the underwater part –15°;
              b) on soft and loose soils: in the above-water part – 20°;
              in the underwater part –15°;
              The river flow speed is not higher, m/s – 1,2;
              Water disturbance no more than 2 points.


              Without appropriate reconnaissance, right off the bat, even a trifling river can be a very unpleasant surprise.
              Plus the preparation of the combat vehicles themselves (some equipment is needed)
              and training of crews to solve the crossing problem.
              Not so simple.
              1. 0
                7 May 2024 12: 45
                Plus the preparation of the combat vehicles themselves (some equipment is needed)

                The cars need new ones; if the suspension balancer seals are worn out, then no amount of water pumping will help.
                The river flow speed is not higher, m/s – 1,2;

                Well, it depends on the design. BMD with water cannons and BMP with rewinding tracks is a big difference.
                Water disturbance no more than 2 points.

                PT-76 holds 3,5 points.
                - the steepness of the climb when exiting the water should not exceed:

                There is a proven solution in the form of batteries of solid propellant boosters at the stern. Even for BMD.
          2. +2
            6 May 2024 11: 53
            Quote: Arzt
            If the combat situation makes it possible to deploy pontoons, buoyancy is not needed.

            During an offensive, the PMP is always lagging somewhere behind, with the main forces. And the very first river stops the movement of the advanced detachment on non-floating equipment.
          3. +1
            6 May 2024 20: 49
            The experience of World War II refutes your assertions. Crossings across the Vistula, Rhine, Weser were everywhere carried out first with the help of amphibians, and only then by pontoon and temporary crossings.
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 21: 15
              The experience of World War II refutes your assertions. Crossings across the Vistula, Rhine, Weser were everywhere carried out first with the help of amphibians, and only then by pontoon and temporary crossings.

              Amphibians are more of a boat than a car. There was an article here.

              https://topwar.ru/80093-pravka-bolshoy-i-plavayuschiy-istoriya-amfibii-bav.html
          4. 0
            11 May 2024 02: 35
            swam in the army, ok
      2. +3
        6 May 2024 11: 17
        Quote: Arzt
        Was there at least one application in SVO?


        There were cases in the first year. They even caught it on video from drones. Both sides used technology to cross rivers. It just happened rarely.
  11. -1
    6 May 2024 08: 43
    “In the case of the latter, they declare a drop in accuracy from 70 to 6 percent, that is, tenfold”... What kind of nonsense! Probably, the author wanted to talk about a drop in the probability of hitting a target, then the result is a decrease from 0.7 to 0.06 (which is unlikely). If we are talking about standard deviation, then the result is an improvement in characteristics...
  12. 0
    6 May 2024 08: 54
    Everything was useful. But the author forgot about the BMPT - it’s not entirely clear whether it is needed or not?
    1. 0
      6 May 2024 13: 25
      Actually, based on the logic of events - like never before. But due to their small number in the troops, their use cannot (yet?) seriously affect combat operations. It’s just a more stable platform than the BMP/APC. It will be more resistant to modern damaging factors (drones) and to unknown yet promising ones. The combat module is not optimal, yes (ideally it would be 35-37-45 mm with a remote blasting analogue of the German-Swiss devices). Well, it is similar in capabilities to the current infantry fighting vehicles (except 3)/armored personnel carriers. About the same as the T-34 model 1941 and KV-1. And extra protection never hurt anyone. There are no major complaints either.
      Here the question is rather about the inconsistency of the concept of “cold-war doomsday infantry fighting vehicles” (they tried to cross a light tank with an armored personnel carrier - “the experiment apparently was not successful”): their ALL need to be tightened ALL parameters (different people “fall short” of the ideal in different ways). Which, naturally, no one will do. But the transport function in them is decisive, and it is worth focusing on it, and using mass reserves to protect against what? Right! Although other things have also changed, the requirements for on-board systems, their performance and energy intensity have also changed significantly. The fact that the BMP is a dead-end branch in terms of the totality of parameters emerges more and more clearly (like some empty modular ships in the fleet), but we have already managed to rivet too much, use it, and we will “cry and inject ourselves” until the last.
    2. -1
      6 May 2024 14: 36
      So they are almost all disabled...
      There were few of them, and there are almost none left
  13. +3
    6 May 2024 09: 31
    A seditious question arises: why create fifth-generation aircraft if they are doomed to be used as air launchers for gliding bombs and missiles?

    Just so that a situation would not arise like with the war in Ukraine, when the Aerospace Forces were able to suppress Ukrainian air defense only in Konashenkov’s victorious reports.
    NATO members in Iraq or Yugoslavia, or the Israelis in the Bekaa Valley were able to do this in reality and with the introduction of 5th generation aircraft they want to reserve this opportunity for themselves.:((
  14. +4
    6 May 2024 09: 34
    Hmmm...it’s probably difficult to draw more incorrect conclusions than the author...let’s go over the very fragile BUTs:
    1) regarding TV-2: the fact that periodically drones on both sides are used to correct strikes about 60 kilometers from the LBS, and they clearly conduct additional reconnaissance and record the results of the strike with more than impunity. This means that the need for medium- and large-sized reconnaissance UAVs is obvious; strike UAVs are perhaps just a bonus.
    2) regarding stealth technologies and their use - if the Su-34 can launch its deadly cargo without entering the air defense range (although the enemy periodically risks air defense systems, apparently it can reach the strikers and it’s very painful), which will prevent aircraft like the F35 from operating also from the air defense zone? Yes, not always, and external sources of intelligence and target designation will be required, but isn’t this the case now for the Su-34? Accordingly, even having stealth systems that are similar in range, they can be deployed deeper into enemy territory and with less risk.
    3) “nuclear apocalypse”. The author should understand the doctrines of at least the United States and our country... and they, these same doctrines, consider 3 options for the use of nuclear weapons. Not the use at all in the event of a small local conflict, the use of tactical nuclear weapons for the purpose of de-escalation, and the use of strategic nuclear forces in the most critical case, and even then only in the form of retaliatory actions. So, when NATO forces are brought in, the maximum that will happen is the use of tactical nuclear weapons (well, if you look at the doctrine)
    4) the use of KAZ and, in general, ultra-modern ground equipment. Where did the author see KAZ and ultra-modern equipment? KAZ is virtually absent from both sides, almost all the equipment transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is equipment 30 years ago... both M2A2 and M1A1... our T90 “breakthrough” can be called comparable to the M1A2 in the SEP version, but they are far from the latest...
    5. Rockets and projectiles with GPS. Yes, we can talk about a decrease in the effectiveness of these funds at the LBS, but not always and only due to the lack of their use within the borders of internationally recognized Ukraine”... will we be able to organize a sufficiently dense dome 300 km from the LBS, if “conditionally” tomorrow suddenly such restrictions will not become a very controversial question... + we must remember that at the moment some of the available means are used with adapted Soviet equipment using crutches, sticks and other non-standard means, how will the effectiveness change when replacing the carriers with standard ones, a good question, I doubt that we “like”...
    As a result, we really have a conflict of quite technically equal opponents, but it’s quite difficult to call them really modern... the armed forces are quite a complex organism; in order to effectively use all components, we need modern components themselves and the right tactics for using them. As an example, the American JDAM... The Americans realized many years ago that “cast iron” is a cool and cheap thing, but its use even against “slippers” carries certain risks (although the Iraqi Armed Forces during both conflicts were absolutely “slippers” in terms of air defense). doesn’t turn, and Yugoslavia bit NATO forces quite unpleasantly), and missiles are an expensive toy, but safer. As a result, a hybrid was born, “controlled cast iron”, quite long-range and cheap. In our country, due to the absence of at least some technologically developed enemy for the last 40 years (Afghanistan, both Chechen wars, Georgia, Syria did not provide us with opponents with at least some kind of organized air defense), we did not come to this conclusion. Focal and isolated air defenses were destroyed by expensive missiles, and the rest was ground into “cast iron.” Faced with the air defense of Ukraine, we had to take into account Western experience and develop a solution almost on our knees...
    1. 0
      6 May 2024 21: 59
      Quote: parma
      1) regarding TV-2: the fact that periodically drones on both sides are used to correct strikes about 60 kilometers from the LBS, and they clearly conduct additional reconnaissance and record the results of the strike with more than impunity. This means that the need for medium- and large-sized reconnaissance UAVs is obvious; strike UAVs are perhaps just a bonus.

      It’s not drones that fly into the rear for 4-7 lyams like a bayraktar and weighing several hundred kg, but all sorts of hall eagles that cost 10-20-30 kilos and are cheaper. But I agree that we really need large drones, for example, so that all kinds of boats can be seen not when they are already going crazy in the port, but 50 kilometers from our shores.
      Quote: parma
      Rockets and projectiles with GPS. Yes, we can talk about a decrease in the effectiveness of these funds at the LBS, but not always and only due to the lack of their use within the borders of internationally recognized Ukraine”... will we be able to organize a sufficiently dense dome 300 km from the LBS

      It seems that field-21 breaks GPS within a radius of more than 100 km, it is quite possible to saturate half the country with it, but the problem begins that citizens do not like that navigators do not work, and Chinese drones do not work well.
      Quote: parma
      Faced with the air defense of Ukraine, we had to take into account Western experience and develop a solution almost on our knees...

      It seems no one is looking for a solution, like other countries don’t have anywhere near the amount of air defense. There are not much more patriots in the world than Ukraine had S-300s at the beginning of the Northern Military District. Like in Ukraine the air defense will end sooner or later and the problem will be solved by itself somehow
      1. KCA
        0
        8 May 2024 12: 16
        The main GPS receivers and smartphones are made in China, and there they have long been putting GPS, Glonass and even their own Beida receivers in one case
        1. 0
          8 May 2024 14: 57
          However, if Mavic loses GPS, it gives an error. Well, here’s the question: what does the Chinese phone think if, according to one navigation system, it is in one place, and according to another, 30 km to the side.
          1. KCA
            0
            8 May 2024 14: 58
            Use the most reliable - GLONASS and check locations with ground beacons
  15. 0
    6 May 2024 09: 35
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Whatever the “conclusion” is, it is something on the verge of, if not stupidity, then a very weak understanding of the topic.
    The first candidates for departure are the high-altitude and relatively low-speed Bayraktar TB2. ... ....The only way out is to use Bayraktar TB2 at ultra-low altitudes, that is, work with the landing gear touching the tops of trees
    It was precisely the use of “Bays” that turned out to be most effective at maximum altitudes, but strictly as an optical reconnaissance device, with its very powerful optics, and not as an attack vehicle.


    The T-34 was objectively inferior to German tanks at the end of the war in all respects except mobility.

    What?!! Was the T-34-85 inferior to the most popular German vehicle - the four?

    Therefore, all 5th generation aircraft can so far be considered exclusively marketing toys - none of them have proven their effectiveness in real combat
    Is it because the 5s were never used in battle? Although the participation of the Su-57 is mentioned, and it would not have been possible to shoot down ukrolitaki at a great distance, and they were shot down, with the La-7.

    In Soviet times, this was the T-64, now it is the T-14 Armata. As it turned out, none of them was adapted to the realities of wartime.
    Author, there is no need to confuse certain “realities” with a new factor, which has come as a surprise to the military all over the world. All tanks turned out to be unsuitable for the mass use of drones! But the T-64 is a massive and not the lousiest machine, and at the beginning of the Northern Military District, both it and the T-72 generally coped with their responsibilities.

    KAZ is generally a unique product: everyone talks about it, but few have seen its work outside of testing grounds. Another purely marketing project and a dead-end branch of progress.
    Here the hand is the face... Not only are there no KAZs in service with either the Armed Forces of Ukraine or our Army, but KAZs are also more promising against drones than electronic warfare, taking into account the automatic retention of a captured target by optics.

    The only thing the author is right about is that targeting high-precision projectiles solely for GPS guidance is not justified against an advanced enemy.

    Yes, no matter how crazy it sounds, the T-34-85 was generally inferior to the later fours, and with the T-64 in general the story is interesting, according to the documents the T-64A was cheaper than the T-72A, and compare the T-64B with the T-72A or with the T -72B is incorrect, because a full-fledged control system appeared on the T-64B. In general, having 3 different MBTs in production was the height of idiocy, especially since Morozov proposed adapting the T-64 to install all existing engines
    1. 0
      11 May 2024 17: 11
      But Guderian had a different opinion about the comparison of the T-34-85 and the Four. The 85mm cannon penetrated the frontal armor of the 102mm Tiger from a distance of 1 km, the 80mm side armor from a distance of 1,5 km. In terms of kinetic energy, the 85mm and 75mm Panther projectile "are the same. In terms of cost, range, maintainability, maneuverability and movement on soft soils, the T-34-85 has no equal for that time
  16. +7
    6 May 2024 09: 54
    Armchair patriots will like the article. Complete scams and failures among the Americans :) Anything is expensive. However, it was the Americans who introduced remote control on infantry fighting vehicles en masse 10-12 years ago. It is the Americans who have already changed 2 generations of MRAP. It was the Americans who created network-centric combat control back in 1991 and developed the concept continuously. It is the “stupid” Americans who are constantly improving anti-radar missiles to destroy enemy air defenses. They are the ones who truly have experience in destroying strong air defense systems of other countries - Iraq and Yugoslavia. And here there are continuous “dips” and “cuts”. Only good friends, in fact, now the United States has been killing Russian soldiers for the second year at the hands of Ukrainians and supplies them with money and weapons, including at the expense of European countries. The experience of the SVO has shown that the Russian army does not have the necessary constellation of observation, communication satellites, etc. The experience of the SVO has shown that we do not have global UAVs and analogues of flying American DLRO radars. Experience has shown that the Russian army does not have sufficient quantities of precision-guided ammunition for cannon artillery and MLRS. The experience of the Northern Military District has shown that our military medicine is 2 years behind the American one. The experience of the Northern Military District has shown a lot besides the imaginary “failures” of the American military industry.
    1. +2
      6 May 2024 11: 59
      Quote: cast iron
      However, it was the Americans who introduced remote control on infantry fighting vehicles en masse 10-12 years ago.

      Earlier. M2A2 with remote sensing appeared in Somalia in 1994.
    2. +6
      6 May 2024 12: 34
      Articles like this are not addressed to people who have even the slightest idea of ​​how backward Russia is in many military aspects. These are articles for “turbo-patriots” sitting on a bench in front of a store somewhere in the village. The truth is that the United States is already preparing for a future war with China, and two Soviet-style armies are fighting in Ukraine, and Russia is “burning” the resources it has accumulated over the years for a war with NATO. And the enemy tests, observes, draws conclusions, eliminates his own weaknesses and improves his capabilities before a possible collision.
  17. 0
    6 May 2024 09: 57
    We need a single Su30SM 2-3-4-5 with modern filling and the entire arsenal. We need air defense - we installed missiles, strike options - UMPC with a bomb, missile launcher or ballistic missile...
  18. +2
    6 May 2024 10: 25
    Has the commissioned article been written? Feels like it's for a TV show. The West, respectively Ukraine, has everything bad, we have better weapons.
    Although my mother is a pensioner who does not surf the Internet at all and learns all the news about the North Military District on TV. She said a simple phrase: “Why, if everything is better with us than with NATO, we still can’t defeat Ukraine alone? That means they’re lying on TV.” laughing
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 12: 36
      Hello to mom. The woman makes better conclusions than most of the residents of the local “mental hospital.”
    2. KCA
      -1
      8 May 2024 12: 20
      The number of the army, navy, aviation and other branches of the Russian military is 600+ people, Europe and Germany in 000 were trampled by the Red Army in the amount of 1945 military personnel, is there a slight difference?
      1. +1
        10 May 2024 08: 27
        The number of army, navy, aviation and other branches of the Russian military is 600+ people,

        The comparison is completely inappropriate.
        Firstly, 11 million is the full strength of the Red Army. This means that the figures for comparison by Moscow Region must be given in full. And this is 2 + to this add the Nth number of formations “outside the state”, territorial defense units being formed and “volunteer units” as part of the National Guard.
        Secondly, assess the scale of the tasks of the Second World War and the Northern Military District, including by what forces the issue of liberation of Soviet Ukraine was resolved.
  19. 0
    6 May 2024 10: 46
    The author indirectly went through the stormtroopers. Apparently this also applies to helicopters.
  20. -3
    6 May 2024 11: 24
    Quote: Mekey Iptyshev
    Has the commissioned article been written? Feels like it's for a TV show. The West, respectively Ukraine, has everything bad, we have better weapons.
    Although my mother is a pensioner who does not surf the Internet at all and learns all the news about the North Military District on TV. She said a simple phrase: “Why, if everything is better with us than with NATO, we still can’t defeat Ukraine alone? That means they’re lying on TV.” laughing

    If we fought like the Americans, we would have walked the length and breadth of Ukraine three times. And so our policy is that civilians should not be harmed. That’s why we are marking time in one place.
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 22: 01
      Quote: BIGLESHIY
      And so our policy is that civilians should not be harmed.

      We put Ukrainian authorities and business interests first, not civil ones. Since Ukrainian civilians died during the Northern Military District, but Ukrainian officials are all alive and well, like Ukrainian generals and propagandists
    2. +5
      7 May 2024 00: 30
      If we fought like the Americans, we would have walked the length and breadth of Ukraine three times.


      That’s right, if we had fought “like stupid and pampered Americans,” then in the first two or three weeks we would have destroyed the entire enemy air defense system as well as all known control points of the enemy state and army. But we are not Americans. Therefore, for 2 years we stormed one village after another.... Only God knows how many of our soldiers died.
      1. 0
        10 May 2024 08: 28
        the first two or three weeks would have destroyed the entire enemy air defense system as well as all known control points of the enemy state and army.

        hi
  21. +1
    6 May 2024 12: 46
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    And the armor is formally thicker, but taking into account the reduction, and significant, of properties - that’s what it is formally.

    Recently it has become fashionable not to take into account the slope of the armor. Someone once blurted out that it doesn’t matter now and the star rushed over the bumps.
    It does, even if we do not take into account the ricochet effect, and talk only about the thickness reduced to the projectile flight path.
    True, the driver's hatch on the thirty-four really spoils the whole mass, but, in principle, the forehead armor of the four and thirty-four can be considered the same.
    In principle, the Pz-4 was a worthy opponent of all medium tanks of the Allies, and thank God that instead of strengthening the armament of the four, the Panther was put into production.
    The armament, despite the difference in the quality of the shells, was stronger in the thirty-fours.
  22. +6
    6 May 2024 12: 51
    The author is an ABSOLUTE layman in the analysis of weapons in the North Military District!
    The author should at least occasionally visit sites with purely military topics and discussions of the progress of the Northern Military District. Read AT LEAST the pro-Russian lostamor.
  23. +2
    6 May 2024 12: 54
    “You can’t call Bayraktar TB2 a completely useless toy - the Turks can quite successfully fight with these drones....”
    February 2022. The enemy shot the first columns from Perevalnoye to Kherson with Bayractars as if in a shooting gallery. And among the dead were my friends. They may have turned out to be useless, but they had to pay for it in blood.
    The kingdom of heaven to all of you who perished then!
  24. +1
    6 May 2024 12: 58
    As I look, lately every article in the “Armaments” section has been a denial, circumcision, ignoring and incorrect comparison of weapons and equipment. Whatever the author, he is a “jack of all trades” - a reaper himself, a blacksmith himself, a fine fellow himself. To listen to these guys, we don’t need anything at all: no ships of the 1st rank, no strategic aviation, no tanks, nothing.
  25. +1
    6 May 2024 13: 10
    Author: “So is a tank of extreme parameters needed at all as a phenomenon?
    Isn't it more efficient to ensure mass production of real warhorses - T-72, T-80 and T-90 of the latest modifications?
    The question is rhetorical, and it has long been answered in Russia."
    Is that so? What - does the T-72, T-80 or T-90 provide crew protection? There are solutions to isolate the ammunition, and it is simply necessary to protect the crew from the explosion of the ammunition. As the war continues now, wars of attrition are possible in the future and, first of all, much more care should be taken about the safety of the crew.
  26. 2al
    +2
    6 May 2024 13: 28
    It should be noted that both now and in the actual future, high-tech weapons, including drones, will be tied primarily to communication systems, and secondly to automated combat control systems of various combat weapons, including those that use AI. The "runaway" of drones is primarily due to the absence of tactical means of fire destruction of communication systems similar to PRRs in the armament of the RF Armed Forces. This is, of course, a failure, and a systemic one, primarily of the General Staff and military science in general. However, the appearance of such “small” means is inevitable and, as always, will be unexpected and massive; systems that are practically autonomous and use passive reconnaissance and guidance systems, attacking radiating sources, will again change the battlefield and military tactics.
  27. 0
    6 May 2024 13: 49
    Quote: Arzt
    Not yet. But the SVO is not over yet. I agree that not all armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles should have this feature. But some part must still have such an opportunity. War is unpredictable and, with such a lengthy LBS, anything can happen.

    Logically.
    If the combat situation makes it possible to deploy pontoons, buoyancy is not needed...
    Do you know how many pontoon crossings across the Dnieper will be required to transfer 1-2 armies to the right bank, and under fire of all that. what the enemy has - artillery, MLRS of various classes, ballistic tactical missiles, etc. Everything they have will fly along these crossings, and the tempo of the offensive will be lost accordingly. Floating equipment is needed for the prompt delivery of assault groups to conquer a bridgehead on the other side, to ensure the relatively safe possibility of establishing pontoon crossings in the future. To do this, there must be appropriate equipment and personnel who know how to use it correctly. These are the basics! Oversimplification coupled with a primitive one-sided approach always leads to defeat! However, my explanation is directed to the wrong address - it’s easier for you to say here that everything is fine as it is, and everything else is from the evil one. Well, well, you are our home-grown expert. lol
    1. -1
      12 May 2024 13: 03
      Quote: Radikal
      Floating equipment is needed for the rapid delivery of assault groups to conquer a bridgehead on the other side, to ensure the relatively safe possibility of establishing pontoon crossings in the future.

      The depth of destruction is approximately 30 km by all types of artillery. How do you want the forces of a battalion, for example, to ensure the capture and retention of a bridgehead? Krinok’s experience has shown the price of such bridgeheads
  28. -1
    6 May 2024 14: 07
    Quote: Arzt
    The special operation, like many other conflicts before it, showed the inadequacy of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which can move on water.
    Author, where does this conclusion come from?

    Rather, the uselessness of this function. Was there at least one application in the Northern Military District?...

    This may indicate two issues. The first - there was no operational need, they limited themselves to using incomplete PMP, and the second is much more serious and unpleasant - the personnel of the units were not trained to overcome water obstacles on the move, and to prepare equipment to overcome them. I already wrote once that many exercises show the construction of grandiose pontoon crossings, using modern infantry fighting vehicles, which are then used to transport them to the opposite shore...floating equipment - infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns "Gvozdika", etc. technique. The question is - why is this? But because over many years they have been accustomed and accustomed to simplification, to creating a beautiful “picture”, or, more simply, to showing off, for which there is nothing else behind it. The results of the first months of the SVO clearly showed this. Unfortunately. sad
  29. -2
    6 May 2024 14: 15
    The only point I agree with. The fact that the floating BTT failed. I can’t understand this armada of Octopus, Nona, Acacia at all... Money laundering
    1. 0
      7 May 2024 12: 58
      If floating equipment was not used in the Northern Military District, this does not mean that it will not find use in the future. It’s better to have it and not need it than to have it urgently and not have it!
    2. 0
      7 May 2024 12: 58
      The only point I agree with. The fact that the floating BTT failed. I can’t understand this armada of Octopus, Nona, Acacia at all... Money laundering

      Acacia became floating???
  30. +1
    6 May 2024 16: 06
    Quote: BIGLESHIY
    Quote: Mekey Iptyshev
    Has the commissioned article been written? Feels like it's for a TV show. The West, respectively Ukraine, has everything bad, we have better weapons.
    Although my mother is a pensioner who does not surf the Internet at all and learns all the news about the North Military District on TV. She said a simple phrase: “Why, if everything is better with us than with NATO, we still can’t defeat Ukraine alone? That means they’re lying on TV.” laughing

    If we fought like the Americans, we would have walked the length and breadth of Ukraine three times. And so our policy is that civilians should not be harmed. That’s why we are marking time in one place.

    Quote: BIGLESHIY
    Quote: Mekey Iptyshev
    Has the commissioned article been written? Feels like it's for a TV show. The West, respectively Ukraine, has everything bad, we have better weapons.
    Although my mother is a pensioner who does not surf the Internet at all and learns all the news about the North Military District on TV. She said a simple phrase: “Why, if everything is better with us than with NATO, we still can’t defeat Ukraine alone? That means they’re lying on TV.” laughing

    If we fought like the Americans, we would have walked the length and breadth of Ukraine three times. And so our policy is that civilians should not be harmed. That’s why we are marking time in one place.

    These are the Americans who, with their first strike in Iraq, destroyed almost all command posts, communication centers, and radar stations - did they do a lot wrong?
    So we went for a ride around Kyiv in the armor, waiting for flowers?
  31. +1
    6 May 2024 16: 42

    GPS has proven itself in many military fields, and naturally every army has been preoccupied with finding ways to jam the enemy's signal. In the USA, versions of the GPS signal have been developed that are more resistant to interference and counterfeiting; secondary users are usually not equipped with them. This explains, in particular, the news indicating a certain ineffectiveness of small-diameter bombs launched from the ground or the GLSDB missiles used by Ukrainians in recent months, which in the version transferred to Kyiv operate a version of GPS that is less resistant to interference and substitution compared to those which are used in the weapons systems of the American armies. However, without the author's firm confidence, I add that it is unknown whether this resistance is sufficient to overcome Russian or Chinese interference. Moreover, we are talking about weapons developed privately, not adopted by anyone before Ukraine, and finally tested in field conditions. In fact, the manufacturing company has already stated that it is planning a version that is more resistant to interference
  32. 0
    6 May 2024 17: 57
    I don’t understand one thing then - if there is no defense against hypersonic missiles zircon and dagger, then why has the military and political leadership of the Ukrainian Reich not yet been destroyed in one massive blow?
  33. 0
    7 May 2024 10: 12
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Yes, and Order No. 325 of October 16.10.1942, XNUMX clearly and unambiguously prescribed: tanks do not fight tanks.


    And, that is, the fact that until the very end of the war, half or more of the ammo tanks were equipped with armor-piercing and sub-caliber ones - did the vile enemies try, cynically shitting on the Great and Inviolable Order #325?
  34. 0
    7 May 2024 10: 48
    I read up to the proposal about air supremacy...
    As a result, the famous maxim of air supremacy is now unattainable for any army in the world if it is fought against by an enemy of equal technical level

    Well, on what basis did the author decide to draw such a conclusion??? Based on SVO??
    Is he familiar with the planning of air operations in NATO countries???? What forces and means are involved there to gain dominance - does the author know??
    Let him first study DESERT STORM 1991. and then draws conclusions.
    If the Russian Aerospace Forces were unable to achieve dominance, this does not mean that someone else cannot!
    1. 0
      7 May 2024 13: 02
      Let him first study DESERT STORM 1991.

      Desert Storm in Russian will be "Sand Storm".
  35. 0
    7 May 2024 11: 56
    Why does the author call Armata a “tank of maximum parameters”? This term a priori already means that the tank contains everything to the maximum. However, both according to analytics and official releases, it is considered “promising”. Which in itself means that it contains potential for further development.
  36. 0
    7 May 2024 12: 48
    Two wishes... "purely into space."
    Do not go to extremes when suddenly “military thought” and the authorities declare that it is not advisable to invent and develop something new, but that it is enough to just thoroughly modernize the old and already tested.
    And secondly, we don’t need any more “Serdyukovs” in the military department, even if on a “secret mission”, as someone with a sore head suggested... the consequences of being a “bull in a china shop” will take a long and expensive time to eliminate.
    1. 0
      13 May 2024 10: 09
      Quote: Clone
      And secondly, we don’t need any more “Serdyukovs” in the military department, even if they are on a “secret mission”

      Finally, Shoigu was kicked out of the Ministry of Defense. A. Belousov was appointed Minister of Defense. The next one, as I understand it, is Comrade. Gerasimov?
  37. 0
    8 May 2024 07: 26
    Where does the author talk about the superiority of Russian military equipment??? He does mention some points, but that’s not what the article is about, gentlemen, “everything’s lost”.
    And the author is not talking at all about stopping development, he is talking about the fact that we need to think about whether it is worth developing some types and that it is definitely worth improving others
    You can compare the German four and the Soviet thirty-four for a long time, but the article, again, is not about that. And about the fact that it is not the CTs and Mouses that make the victory, but the thirty-fours, or fours, which did not bring victory, but did their job.
    Fifth generation aircraft are not completely invisible. According to the Americans, invisibility is constantly reduced during operation. I don’t know how expensive it is to restore, but the fact is that the risk of losing an expensive and highly promoted toy will always outweigh the opportunity to fly a little closer.
  38. 0
    10 May 2024 10: 44
    The author of the article is very wrong about the use of 5th generation aircraft. Where was this used by F22, F35, Su 57?
    The same Su 35 and Su34 are 4th generation 2 plus aircraft. Regarding UAVs, yes, in the war in Ukraine they became its symbol, but I think that this war will also be the decline of UAVs, during the war new means of countering UAVs appear, and I think after the war there are numerous design bureaus, everyone will rush to look for a new way to combat UAVs in the air and at sea, most likely it will be something based on an electromagnetic pulse.
  39. 0
    10 May 2024 13: 26
    NWO is like the CARIBBEAN CRISIS, only without an agreement. For now there is only the threat of a direct military conflict with the West, aka NATO. Neither the Americans nor the Europeans are afraid of getting hit. Everyone is still waiting to see what Putin will do about the threat of missile strikes throughout Russia. But the President didn't blink. To his credit. The West expects to take Russia weakly. He pisses off, but continues to experience the existence of a region where he can continue to spread rot on Putin’s Russia without damage. It is possible that tactical nuclear weapons will be used. Is it at the training ground?
    1. 0
      12 May 2024 13: 05
      Quote: Barmal
      But the President didn't blink

      He hasn't blinked since the onset of SVO. So his eyes can dry out
  40. 0
    10 May 2024 14: 00
    We must prepare for any war; during the SVO, it became clear that the leadership of the Ministry of Defense, as the main customer, completely or partially underestimated and ignored the massive appearance of unmanned weapons both in the air and on the water, hence, radio electronic suppression equipment did not develop since it was necessary, air defense, its tactics and combat use have not changed since the Cold War, let’s remember the almost liquidated infantry fighting vehicle plant in Kurgan and various other arts of effective managers, it so happened that we, our population, became hostages to the incompetent actions of leaders in the Ministry of Defense and a number of other ministries working for the defense industry. In military academies, before the start of the Northern Military District, exercises were carried out only exclusively in the fight against illegal armed groups, hence the inertia of the operational-tactical thinking of the military leadership. Yes, we are slow to harness, but we drive quickly and learn from our own mistakes, but we must not forget about the casualties among civilians and military personnel.
  41. 0
    10 May 2024 17: 20
    High intensity conflict - yes! But there is no guarantee that this is a complete definition of all the rules of war. After all, for example, NATO’s open confrontation with Russia or China makes reconnaissance aircraft and drones legitimate targets. As well as the entire giant US satellite constellation. Now they see and hear everything, and can accurately aim at the target. And with the disappearance of impunity for spying, all the vaunted advantage will become a pumpkin. So, it is necessary to analyze not only combat operations, but also the specifics of the use of weapons.
  42. 0
    12 May 2024 12: 25
    Future wars. Multi-thousand, relatively cheap and mass-produced drones. Two echelons: 1st Echelon. Missile defense suppression - low-flying, medium-flying and high-altitude (with radar down). The middle one calls for fire and conducts reconnaissance of the area, the High-altitude one works (if necessary) on anti-missiles and (the main task) takes out the missile defense system or transfers the task to the Low-flying drone. 2nd Echelon. Storming positions with thousands of small copters with protective shields against small guns (with a machine gun for infantry, a shot for armor and fragmentation for a cluster - three types). Minefields will be useless against copters. After discovering a fortification, a high-altitude bomber is called in.
  43. 0
    12 May 2024 12: 41
    The most important task for the future is protection for electronics in drones and communication from interference and radiation (possibly a transition to optical or other signal physics). At the very least, we have our own chips. Development of algorithms for autonomous operation and recognition of friend or foe. There is such a concept as the time of combat operations; if the army does not keep up with the time of combat operations, collapse occurs. (i.e. supplies, fuels and lubricants, consumables). Under radiation conditions, conduct (autonomous) lightning-fast combat operations with mass drones. After the introduction of mass production of chips, secure communications, drones (robotic complexes), and algorithms in the defense industry, as usually happens, progressive technologies flow from the defense industry into the economic sector of the country.
  44. 0
    12 May 2024 12: 57
    Under this case, a picture emerges of the development of the Far East - the extraction of rare earths to create their own battery for equipment.
  45. -1
    12 May 2024 13: 28
    Quote from Kartograph
    Quote: Radikal
    Floating equipment is needed for the rapid delivery of assault groups to conquer a bridgehead on the other side, to ensure the relatively safe possibility of establishing pontoon crossings in the future.

    The depth of destruction is approximately 30 km by all types of artillery. How do you want the forces of a battalion, for example, to ensure the capture and retention of a bridgehead? Krinok’s experience has shown the price of such bridgeheads

    And what? So we don’t need the right bank? Maybe then, well, what the heck, why do we need Engineer Troops, infantry fighting vehicles, amphibious equipment? Let's organize Istanbul-2,3,4, and let the Ukrainian Reich join NATO, rearm, and then re-arm. In Kursk, in Belgorod with high-precision devices... . So yes? Krynok experience? Why cite an example of an unprepared, mediocre operation? Are there no other examples?! I’ve never asked anyone such questions, but I can’t resist here! Are you broadcasting from TsIPSO? sad
    1. -1
      13 May 2024 10: 14
      Quote: Radikal
      Are there no other examples?! I’ve never asked anyone such questions, but I can’t resist here! Are you broadcasting from TsIPSO?

      Yes, yes from the very center of TsIPSO.
      “Why give an example of an unprepared, mediocre operation? Are there no other examples?”
      For example? Maybe you can cite a perfectly executed operation to cross a river? Then cite the number of troops and losses. It’s also good that you don’t propose to throw out an airborne assault.
  46. 0
    13 May 2024 09: 57
    Quote: antivirus
    In order not to lose, we need an entire session of simultaneous play on 10 boards at once, all over the world. In fact, on the outskirts is not the main enemy.


    The enemy too. And play with it - not only with us. There are China, North Korea, Iran, not to mention all sorts of quasi-formations there, such as the Yemeni Houthis.

    Quote: Parvis Rasulov

    The same Su 35 and Su34 are 4th generation 2 plus aircraft. Regarding UAVs, yes, in the war in Ukraine they became its symbol, but I think that this war will also be the decline of UAVs, during the war new means of countering UAVs appear, and I think after the war there are numerous design bureaus, everyone will rush to look for a new way to combat UAVs in the air and at sea, most likely it will be something based on an electromagnetic pulse.


    Another competition between armor and projectile, in the long term - a long one. To fight drones, it is best to use other drones, including SAM drones. Microwave emitters - yes, this is very promising, not only against UAVs, but also against manned aircraft. Better than laser, definitely. But for every poison there is an antidote. And drones will most likely be popular due to their large numbers, simplicity and low cost of production, rather than their own invulnerability.
    One mosquito is not dangerous for humans, it is easy to swat it, but 10 million mosquitoes can drink blood, leading to death.
  47. 0
    13 May 2024 10: 28
    Quote from Kartograph
    Quote: Radikal
    Are there no other examples?! I’ve never asked anyone such questions, but I can’t resist here! Are you broadcasting from TsIPSO?

    Yes, yes from the very center of TsIPSO.
    “Why give an example of an unprepared, mediocre operation? Are there no other examples?”
    For example? Maybe you can cite a perfectly executed operation to cross a river? Then cite the number of troops and losses. It’s also good that you don’t propose to throw out an airborne assault.

    I’ll give you just one example - the liberation of right-bank Ukraine during the Great Patriotic War. Here is an example for you, for all times and peoples! And if you have methods of conducting combat operations to liberate territories saturated with natural and artificial water barriers without forcing them, then you are a monster of military art, you are Macedonian and Zhukov in one bottle! lol
  48. 0
    13 May 2024 18: 34
    The first Black Sea Fleet proved that with the stupidest command of the fleet, large ships in closed sea basins and off the coast have nothing to do. BECs and similar sea drones send them to the bottom or drive them out of the control zone. The air defense and missile defense of Russian ships is extremely weak. The result is that a third of the fleet was sunk or disabled. Conclusion - large ships are needed only for transporting cargo and butting heads with uninvited guests in our waters in peacetime, as radar stations and as launchers for missiles and drones. To launch them very far from the enemy’s coast. But from here comes another conclusion - any dry cargo, any cargo sea transport can be used for launches by installing launcher containers on it. Then powerful radars can be installed on them with the same success. That’s all, it turns out that in puddles like the World Cup, cruisers and destroyers are no longer needed. Not to mention aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers. Floating technology is also essentially useless. All the crossings were established at the beginning of the NVO for a reason, but because it was possible to go into the river, but not to go ashore. Well, not the same shore as at the exercises and training ground. For mines and enemy artillery fire suppress any such possibility. And even if you successfully crossed to the other side in an armored personnel carrier, having entered into battle, then you then need ammunition, fuel, and so on. Should they also be transported on an armored personnel carrier? That’s why the crossings were burning from enemy strikes - they were flooded with the supervision of enemy drones and satellites online, a bunch of equipment was collected in front of them and all of this was destroyed at once. Floating equipment is useless in modern warfare.
    Further, it’s already a no brainer that to launch missiles outside the enemy’s air defense zone, the AN-26 can be converted, not to mention the IL-76. Install a drum launcher with a CD and hatches in the bottom. Like in TU-160. Supersonics are not needed here and access to the shores of America is not needed. Now we need high-speed light equipment for the battlefield for reconnaissance and landing, and heavy armored vehicles protected from drones for combat, attack aircraft and defense.
  49. 0
    13 May 2024 19: 05
    In essence it is...
    Especially if we assume that there are effective anti-satellite weapons in the bins...
    Depriving the Padlo-Saxons of navigation/communication is the same as lowering them into the Stone Age...
    All their sophisticated equipment will turn into a pile of iron...
    And considering that their specialists do not know how to walk in azimuth...
    The main thing here is not to overlook the new feature - as was the case with drones and especially with fpv...
    We urgently need to look for an antidote - given the amount that ukry are supplied to the front...
  50. AB
    0
    14 May 2024 13: 15
    ...massive GPS spoofing, which covered the entire front line of the Russian Army, seriously undermined the accuracy of the Western "wunderwaffen"...
    I didn't even know such a thing. My repeated cheers for the RF Armed Forces and applause!