If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(War is Boring)   After seeing the T-72 tank's abject performance against the M1 Abrams in Iraq, Russia decides to keep more of them. Or maybe they're too broke to afford new tanks, either way   ( warisboring.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, armored fighting vehicles, Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Russia, Russian Space Forces, Ministry of Defence, Awards and Emblems of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Military of Russia, Gen. Alexander Shevchenko  
•       •       •

8044 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2017 at 12:10 PM (44 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-13 10:52:15 AM  
This news makes HR McMaster's day
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 11:05:10 AM  
T-72's work great against rebel scum.
 
2017-09-13 11:15:58 AM  
Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!
 
2017-09-13 11:23:46 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!


With all the cost plus contracts we're handing out, I'm not sure we could any more.  Even if they were interested.
 
2017-09-13 11:30:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!

With all the cost plus contracts we're handing out, I'm not sure we could any more.  Even if they were interested.


But hey... We got the F-35

/so there's that
 
2017-09-13 11:32:07 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!


In 2012, they planned 2,300 of the new T-14 Armata tanks... the most recent update says they're only purchasing 100 of them. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-announced-how-m​a​ny-deadly-t-14-armata-tanks-it-22085

They're nearly bankrupt at this point.
 
2017-09-13 11:37:44 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!

In 2012, they planned 2,300 of the new T-14 Armata tanks... the most recent update says they're only purchasing 100 of them. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-announced-how-ma​ny-deadly-t-14-armata-tanks-it-22085

They're nearly bankrupt at this point.


Now let's tell them we're developing a space-based missile defense system

/That always gets 'em
 
2017-09-13 11:44:21 AM  

thehobbes: This news makes HR McMaster's day
[img.fark.net image 323x202]


Kinda this. Are they thinking we are going to run out of shells and bullets if an armed conflict goes down?

Do they not know about the weak point in the fuel tank for the T-72s that make them vulnerable to snipers?!
 
2017-09-13 11:49:19 AM  
I used to live in a military town where the nearby army base is home to one of the most famous armored divisions in the country. One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile. He said when they encountered any enemy armored units, all they had to do was put enough space between themselves and the enemy and then simply pick them off one at a time. They didn't even have to try to hide themselves because they were literally in no danger whatsoever. He said the only threat they faced was from friendly fire because pilots sometimes mistook them for the enemy. His description of being a tank commander actually sounded pretty boring. I guess if you really want a challenge, you'd have to build a time machine and become part of a tank crew in an M4 in WW II. Definitely not boring.
 
2017-09-13 11:52:47 AM  
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 11:55:37 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: I used to live in a military town where the nearby army base is home to one of the most famous armored divisions in the country. One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile. He said when they encountered any enemy armored units, all they had to do was put enough space between themselves and the enemy and then simply pick them off one at a time. They didn't even have to try to hide themselves because they were literally in no danger whatsoever. He said the only threat they faced was from friendly fire because pilots sometimes mistook them for the enemy. His description of being a tank commander actually sounded pretty boring. I guess if you really want a challenge, you'd have to build a time machine and become part of a tank crew in an M4 in WW II. Definitely not boring.


Here's McMaster's after action write up about 73 Easting.
www.benning.army.mil/Library/content/McMasterHR%20CPT_Battleof73Eastin​g.pdf

Great read, slow start, gets really intense, and then the realization of how utterly outgunned the Iraqis were dawns on you.
 
2017-09-13 11:55:50 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: I used to live in a military town where the nearby army base is home to one of the most famous armored divisions in the country. One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile. He said when they encountered any enemy armored units, all they had to do was put enough space between themselves and the enemy and then simply pick them off one at a time. They didn't even have to try to hide themselves because they were literally in no danger whatsoever. He said the only threat they faced was from friendly fire because pilots sometimes mistook them for the enemy. His description of being a tank commander actually sounded pretty boring. I guess if you really want a challenge, you'd have to build a time machine and become part of a tank crew in an M4 in WW II. Definitely not boring.


Reminds me of the little kid trying to hit their older brother, as the older brother just sticks his hand on his younger brother's head.
 
2017-09-13 12:00:32 PM  
I had a neighbor across the street from me that was at the battle of 73 Easting, He likened it to being on the side of the Martians at the beginning of War of the Worlds.


I also learned that tank people refer to people not in a tank as "crunchies".
 
2017-09-13 12:05:22 PM  

One Bad Apple: I had a neighbor across the street from me that was at the battle of 73 Easting, He likened it to being on the side of the Martians at the beginning of War of the Worlds.


I also learned that tank people refer to people not in a tank as "crunchies".


Pretty much. The Bradleys actually got more tank kills than the Abrams.

The Boondoggle IFV that is a jack of all trades clusterfark managed to wreck the Iraqi armor.
 
2017-09-13 12:09:57 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!

In 2012, they planned 2,300 of the new T-14 Armata tanks... the most recent update says they're only purchasing 100 of them. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-announced-how-ma​ny-deadly-t-14-armata-tanks-it-22085

They're nearly bankrupt at this point.


But that girly-man Obama went with sanctions instead of a) throwing millions of Americans against Putin or b) kowtowing to Putin and giving him a hummer

/really I still don't know what the GOP's plan was/is
 
2017-09-13 12:16:44 PM  

thehobbes: The Bradleys actually got more tank kills than the Abrams.

The Boondoggle IFV that is a jack of all trades clusterfark managed to wreck the Iraqi armor.


That's always the part that surprises me the most. I would never get that to work in Steel Panthers.
 
2017-09-13 12:19:43 PM  
Tanks are a conventional warfare unit and I imagine Russia will look at the 6,000 tanks they decide to keep with their thoughts on how Russia fights conventional wars. Take those 6,000 units stuff them with the appropriate number of pre-corpses, write them off as lost before they even leave base and let them do as much damage as possible before they're destroyed then follow them up with more fodder. I'm not sure Russia has ever tried to win a war with finesse or highly trained regiments of tech savvy warriors. They throw live flesh into the grist mill until they break it.
 
2017-09-13 12:21:32 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile.


From what I've heard, the M1A1 could achieve that 2 mile range while firing on the move, whereas the T-72 can only fire reliably from 1 mile away if it's stationary.

I thought that the T-72 was the "export" version though, and that the Russian Army itself uses the T-64. No idea how much of a difference is though.
 
2017-09-13 12:22:00 PM  
He might have been bs'ing me, but a former co-worker and Gulf War 1 vet was supposedly with some combat intelligence gathering unit. He claimed that, after they arrived at the dug-in Iraqi positions, that were turned into tank graveyards by our guys, that they would sometimes find "soldier sausage." Basically, he said, the armor piercing round would hit the Iraqi tank with such speed and force, causing such an instant pressure differential, that anything not nailed down inside would immediately get ejected/extruded out of the 6" hole in the turret, that lasted about a nano second before the resulting explosion blew everything else to shiat. So, there's a burnt human meat tube on the ground over there. Like I said, probably bs, but, if not, holy hell.
 
2017-09-13 12:22:22 PM  

One Bad Apple: I had a neighbor across the street from me that was at the battle of 73 Easting, He likened it to being on the side of the Martians at the beginning of War of the Worlds.


I also learned that tank people refer to people not in a tank as "crunchies".



And those people refer to people in a tank as "crispies".
 
2017-09-13 12:22:30 PM  

rudemix: I'm not sure Russia has ever tried to win a war with finesse or highly trained regiments of tech savvy warriors. They throw live flesh into the grist mill until they break it.


And they are pretty good at winning that way.
 
2017-09-13 12:25:41 PM  
Not to say a T-72 could stand up to a MBT but Iraq ones where export versions. Not the same armor as in the russian army.
 
2017-09-13 12:26:16 PM  
Why would they need new tanks? They can just control ours.
 
2017-09-13 12:26:16 PM  
The Iraqi T-72s are inferior to the non-export model. And the training wasn't up to par. I forget who said it but you could run the Iraq war again with the equipment reversed and the US would still win. A well trained crew in a proper first party T-72 with all the latest upgrades is not something I would wish to face.

In exercises pitting Bradleys against M1s it's nearly parity. It comes down to who sees who first, terrain positioning, etc..
 
2017-09-13 12:26:38 PM  

rudemix: Tanks are a conventional warfare unit and I imagine Russia will look at the 6,000 tanks they decide to keep with their thoughts on how Russia fights conventional wars. Take those 6,000 units stuff them with the appropriate number of pre-corpses, write them off as lost before they even leave base and let them do as much damage as possible before they're destroyed then follow them up with more fodder. I'm not sure Russia has ever tried to win a war with finesse or highly trained regiments of tech savvy warriors. They throw live flesh into the grist mill until they break it.


It's like the Immortals in 300.
 
2017-09-13 12:30:17 PM  

Arkanaut: The Dog Ate My Homework: One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile.

From what I've heard, the M1A1 could achieve that 2 mile range while firing on the move, whereas the T-72 can only fire reliably from 1 mile away if it's stationary.

I thought that the T-72 was the "export" version though, and that the Russian Army itself uses the T-64. No idea how much of a difference is though.


No, the T-72 is it's own model, and the export version is the T-72M. I think export versions of Soviet tanks generally had thinner armor and shiattier engines, maybe cheaper optics packages as well.
 
2017-09-13 12:31:08 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!

In 2012, they planned 2,300 of the new T-14 Armata tanks... the most recent update says they're only purchasing 100 of them. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-announced-how-ma​ny-deadly-t-14-armata-tanks-it-22085

They're nearly bankrupt at this point.


In fairness, they've transferred a LOT of cash over to their oligarchs, and there are only so many ways to launder cash overseas now. An arms race with the Chinese or the US just isn't in the cards. They NEED new rubes to fleece, and getting the band back together is the only way to get them the greener pastures they need, since so many of their former client states have gone and signed on with the EU and been admitted into NATO. They can't expand West, because there's China and Korea. They can't really go south all that much either, not without a LOT of outcry.

So, really the only people that they have to race with arms with, are a few former possessions of the USSR, and they have pretty much parity with arms, given that they all have a similar tech base. Given how much stuff they still have left over from the Cold War, why get all persnickity in getting new stuff, when they just have to hold mild superiority over people without a formal military nowadays?
 
2017-09-13 12:36:51 PM  
Keep in mind that while the T-72 is inferior to the M1, crew skill and tactics also play a MASSIVE role.  The Russians understand the T-72's limitations a lot better than the Iraqis did, and the Russians are pretty notorious when it comes to how seriously they focus of tank crew training.  If the Russians and the US got into a shooting conflict, the Russians won't be throwing T-72s against M1s on an open field. They'll save them for areas where they know they could force close range combat or areas where both side's mobility would be negated or where they could achieve numerical superiority. That doesn't mean T-72s would be able to stop M1s, but it means that the encounters wouldn't be as ridiculously lopsided as they were when it was the Americans vs the Iraqis.
 
2017-09-13 12:37:58 PM  

hubiestubert: Tr0mBoNe: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!

In 2012, they planned 2,300 of the new T-14 Armata tanks... the most recent update says they're only purchasing 100 of them. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-announced-how-ma​ny-deadly-t-14-armata-tanks-it-22085

They're nearly bankrupt at this point.

In fairness, they've transferred a LOT of cash over to their oligarchs, and there are only so many ways to launder cash overseas now. An arms race with the Chinese or the US just isn't in the cards. They NEED new rubes to fleece, and getting the band back together is the only way to get them the greener pastures they need, since so many of their former client states have gone and signed on with the EU and been admitted into NATO. They can't expand West, because there's China and Korea. They can't really go south all that much either, not without a LOT of outcry.

So, really the only people that they have to race with arms with, are a few former possessions of the USSR, and they have pretty much parity with arms, given that they all have a similar tech base. Given how much stuff they still have left over from the Cold War, why get all persnickity in getting new stuff, when they just have to hold mild superiority over people without a formal military nowadays?


imageshack.comView Full Size

Where they want to expand is pretty obvious at this point. The bottom one even gets near a new pipeline that really cheesed off the Russians when it came on line.

Arms sales are a big deal for them, especially in Africa and Asia. Their recent activities have done a lot for their market by demonstrating against live targets in anger. That most of the victims are civilians or poorly armed rebels is a selling point.
 
2017-09-13 12:39:29 PM  
Let them hear the song of my people!

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 12:41:53 PM  

thehobbes: The Dog Ate My Homework: I used to live in a military town where the nearby army base is home to one of the most famous armored divisions in the country. One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile. He said when they encountered any enemy armored units, all they had to do was put enough space between themselves and the enemy and then simply pick them off one at a time. They didn't even have to try to hide themselves because they were literally in no danger whatsoever. He said the only threat they faced was from friendly fire because pilots sometimes mistook them for the enemy. His description of being a tank commander actually sounded pretty boring. I guess if you really want a challenge, you'd have to build a time machine and become part of a tank crew in an M4 in WW II. Definitely not boring.

Here's McMaster's after action write up about 73 Easting.
www.benning.army.mil/Library/content/McMasterHR%20CPT_Battleof73Eastin​g.pdf

Great read, slow start, gets really intense, and then the realization of how utterly outgunned the Iraqis were dawns on you.


What a great read, thanks for sharing.

/former M1 tanker
 
2017-09-13 12:42:43 PM  
The US needs a few flying tanks. Just enough to impress hear a chorus of WTF in Russian on a battlefield in Syria.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 12:43:19 PM  

ko_kyi: rudemix: I'm not sure Russia has ever tried to win a war with finesse or highly trained regiments of tech savvy warriors. They throw live flesh into the grist mill until they break it.

And they are pretty good at winning that way.


Were.  They don't have the demographics for that anymore.
 
kgf
2017-09-13 12:45:07 PM  

ko_kyi: rudemix: I'm not sure Russia has ever tried to win a war with finesse or highly trained regiments of tech savvy warriors. They throw live flesh into the grist mill until they break it.

And they are pretty good at winning that way.


Umm, excuse me?   What have they won?  You're probably thinking about WWII.  After losing 20 million people, they did finally win - with American trucks and fuel.  Take that away, and the Russians lose.  T-34, blah,blah, blah.  A t-34 without fuel is a pile of scrap metal.

Or maybe you're thinking about Afghanistan - oh that's right, they gave up after 10 years.

So what have they actually won without any outside help?  Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is the Hungarian uprising in 1957 and a bunch of other small rebellions.
 
2017-09-13 12:46:44 PM  

abhorrent1: rudemix: Tanks are a conventional warfare unit and I imagine Russia will look at the 6,000 tanks they decide to keep with their thoughts on how Russia fights conventional wars. Take those 6,000 units stuff them with the appropriate number of pre-corpses, write them off as lost before they even leave base and let them do as much damage as possible before they're destroyed then follow them up with more fodder. I'm not sure Russia has ever tried to win a war with finesse or highly trained regiments of tech savvy warriors. They throw live flesh into the grist mill until they break it.

It's like the Immortals in 300.


It's what they did for WWII, send millions of people to the front and instead of relying on reinforcements from the rear they were reinforced from the front as their soldiers and civilians retreated into friendly territory.

The plan was never to stop the Germans at the border, but to throw enough bodies at the problem until you could establish the rear line, then let what's left of your army retreat into the rear line.  So every step the Russians retreated, the bigger and more experienced their army got while the German army got smaller and less experienced.
 
2017-09-13 12:47:37 PM  

Frederf: The Iraqi T-72s are inferior to the non-export model. And the training wasn't up to par. I forget who said it but you could run the Iraq war again with the equipment reversed and the US would still win. A well trained crew in a proper first party T-72 with all the latest upgrades is not something I would wish to face.

In exercises pitting Bradleys against M1s it's nearly parity. It comes down to who sees who first, terrain positioning, etc..


T-72 was designed for the European theater.  It would still be super deadly, near top-of-the-line in that setting.  As far as keeping them, I understand that the Russians had whole divisions of T-34s pickled up until the 70's.

Think quick draw gun fights not broadsides from 3KM.  Whole game plan would change.
 
2017-09-13 12:47:58 PM  

Frederf: The Iraqi T-72s are inferior to the non-export model. And the training wasn't up to par. I forget who said it but you could run the Iraq war again with the equipment reversed and the US would still win.


This. You shouldn't judge the effectiveness of military equipment by how well it performs in the hands of the Iraqi army. Or any Middle Eastern force for that matter. Hezbollah doesn't field a great many T72s and no one else there can find their ass with both hands.
 
2017-09-13 12:49:35 PM  
How many M1s are in Ukranie?  How many M1s did Putin face invading Belarus?  I'm willing to be these were a smart buy and likely to roll over many battlefields (well, at least parts.  I'm not sure how many Russian tanks it takes to keep one going).
/Putin has other enemies, you know
//he just has pretty much neutralized the US with his puppet
///now he can expand his borders at will
 
2017-09-13 12:50:17 PM  

Arkanaut: The Dog Ate My Homework: One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile.

From what I've heard, the M1A1 could achieve that 2 mile range while firing on the move, whereas the T-72 can only fire reliably from 1 mile away if it's stationary.

I thought that the T-72 was the "export" version though, and that the Russian Army itself uses the T-64. No idea how much of a difference is though.


Gyro-stabilized fun!  I have binoculars on the boat that do that.
 
2017-09-13 12:55:10 PM  
Was not active duty but in the Guard and a gunner on a M1.  Something about hitting a moving target while on the move at over 1,200 meters is impressive.  That was before all the enhancements, we got the hand me down tanks from active units....
 
2017-09-13 12:55:39 PM  

Arkanaut: The Dog Ate My Homework: One of my neighbors had been an M1 tank commander in Iraq and explained that its range was roughly 2 miles, while the range of a T72 is roughly one mile.

From what I've heard, the M1A1 could achieve that 2 mile range while firing on the move, whereas the T-72 can only fire reliably from 1 mile away if it's stationary.

I thought that the T-72 was the "export" version though, and that the Russian Army itself uses the T-64. No idea how much of a difference is though.


The T-72s the Iraqi army used were the export models, aka "monkey models". Easy to use by third-world conscripts with no formal education, and little threat if turned against the motherland.
Said conscripts had also been bombarded by air strikes and artillery for three days straight, and were not well-rested and alert. They had zero chance.
 
2017-09-13 12:59:09 PM  
It's OK since Drumpf will do whatever Putin says.
 
2017-09-13 12:59:42 PM  
To be fair, the T72's used by Saddam were either "economy" model cheap exports, or garbage locally built copies that werent fit to share the same garage, and none of them were manned by Soviet/Russian crews or commanded by Soviet/Russian staff. Taking crappy knockoffs crewed by people with little training or coherent doctrine and commanded by people who have no ability to manage modern warfare was something of a predictable disaster.

That said, yeah the T72 is outdated, but modernized T72's can still have a place on the battlefield, and the Russians have shown quite convincingly that having thousands of mediocre tanks can win out against small numbers of much more capable machines, particularly as the combined armored forces of Germany, France and Britain amount to about ~1000 machines in total.

The question is if Russia can actually crew, supply, transport and manage a 5 digit tank arsenal, which is highly questionable at this stage.
 
2017-09-13 01:00:27 PM  
$8m tank vs $8 concertina wire
img.fark.netView Full Size

I used a log.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 01:08:12 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh boy! Let's see if we can arms race them to bankruptcy again!

In 2012, they planned 2,300 of the new T-14 Armata tanks... the most recent update says they're only purchasing 100 of them. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-announced-how-ma​ny-deadly-t-14-armata-tanks-it-22085

They're nearly bankrupt at this point.


I wonder why...
 
2017-09-13 01:09:09 PM  
The T--72's abject performance against the M-1 Abrams.  But that was T-72s manned by the Iraqi army vs. M1 Abrams manned by the US army.
 
2017-09-13 01:13:13 PM  
Also forgot that the M1 is getting an upgrade
 
2017-09-13 01:13:33 PM  
I'm going to imagine that T-72s manned by trained, disciplined Russian soldiers would probably fare a bit better than T-72s manned by Iraqis looking to get the hell out of Dodge.

See also, aircraft.  There is a reason why Israelis could dominate the sky with 40 year old F-4 air frames while the Iranians can't get out of their own way flying Mig-29s.
 
2017-09-13 01:14:33 PM  

CoysOdie: $8m tank vs $8 concertina wire
[img.fark.net image 485x256]
I used a log.
[img.fark.net image 553x423]


His panzer's on fire.
 
2017-09-13 01:17:38 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: They're nearly bankrupt at this point.


They should shift tactics then, and try to fragment the west's alliances. Maybe support the election of someone who threatened NATO?
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report