Ukraine

[Gergar12]

In my opinion, had Russia not invaded Crimea, and got sanctioned, and not invaded Ukraine right now, and mass-produced their T-14 Amarta tanks, Su-57s, and S-400s, actually trained their troops & not lie to them, and not hold back their Su-34s, and Su-35s, it would literally be slaughter on the Ukrainians.

The T-14 is by far the best tank in the world, and you would need multiple ATGMS like Javelin, and NLAWs to take one down from multiple directions. Also, Israel won't sell Ukraine Spike TV guided missiles which is the only thing that can stop it, unless you get behind it, or on top of a very tall building, and destroy the engine block. It's got better armor, gun, hard kill, and soft kill systems than the Korean, and Japanese Generation 3 4 tanks. They have the only hard kill and ERA blocks that can hamper kinetic projectiles from other tanks. No Ukraine tank could have touched it, and western tanks with the best ammo would have needed at least 2 hits in the same area.


The Su-57 has AESA radar, is the 3rd best fighter jet in the world after the American F-35, and F-22. It's got stealth, great missiles. Their AESA radars would help destroy Mig-29s, TB-2 drones, and Su-27s with ease.

The Mig-31K can launch hypersonic missiles at ground targets.

The S-400 which is the weakest link here can likely take care of all air assets in Ukraine.

BMP-Ts are one of the few vehicles designed for urban warfare.

AK-12 with optics are on par with western firearms with optics somewhat.

Had Putin waited, and not sent Soviet Era Tanks, limited air cover with his air force, and increased production of Russian precision-guided munitions or PGMS.

Basically, if the Russians had taken a look at US forces in the first Gulf War copied the logistics, and said let's do what the Chinese do, and modernize our military, AND learned from the Iraq Invasion by using optics on rifles, and sending their best soldiers first, it would be a lot better.

Instead, he sent the worst troops in first, no optics on rifles, lying to them which meant they sold their fuel to Belarussians thinking they wouldn't need it, sent tanks from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and modernized old tanks which still sucked. No allies like China or Belarus troops in Ukraine on the first wave.

I mean just look at the fact that no T-90Ms, BMPTs, or Su-34s have officially been destroyed, those are the best Russian equipment and they haven't used them. Putin is closer to Saddam than he is to US military high command. Unlike the US Gulf War, the US didn't suffer this many deaths and had allies help.

 

[Hawki]

Snip

Well that was depressing.

'Tanks for the read.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

nice video that looks into the Russian mindset

 

[Agema]

The T-14 is by far the best tank in the world...

No tank unproven in warfare can realistically be called the best tank in the world. For all we know it goes 20 miles and breaks down. Or the gun jams every second shot. Or the computer system key to operating it is seriously bugged. Or the claims of its defensive capabilities / armour are grossly exaggerated, etc.

you would need multiple ATGMS like Javelin, and NLAWs to take one down from multiple directions.

You don't need to destroy a tank: just disabling it renders it anywhere between mostly and totally ineffective (until repaired).

Basically, if the Russians had taken a look at US forces in the first Gulf War copied the logistics, and said let's do what the Chinese do, and modernize our military, AND learned from the Iraq Invasion by using optics on rifles, and sending their best soldiers first, it would be a lot better.

Instead, he sent the worst troops in first, no optics on rifles, lying to them which meant they sold their fuel to Belarussians thinking they wouldn't need it, sent tanks from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and modernized old tanks which still sucked. No allies like China or Belarus troops in Ukraine on the first wave.

I mean just look at the fact that no T-90Ms, BMPTs, or Su-34s have officially been destroyed, those are the best Russian equipment and they haven't used them. Putin is closer to Saddam than he is to US military high command. Unlike the US Gulf War, the US didn't suffer this many deaths and had allies help.

I don't think this is true.

Russia clearly attempted a coup de main to kick off the invasion, attempting to seize key strategic locations - almost all of which appear to have failed. It is almost guaranteed that these would have used high quality troops. I would suggest that maybe Russia just doesn't have that many good units. They're there in Ukraine, but they are heavily outnumbered by the low quality, whether mediocre professional units or conscripts. In terms of equipment, I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed that a Su-34 has been shot down (and allegedly by a Soviet era surface-to-air missile). In terms of the T-90M, Russia is estimated to just not have many, about 50: the bulk of its tanks would have to be older designs.

I would in fact strongly suggest that Russia has already been militarily embarrassed, which is why it's had to fall back to to systematically demolishing Ukraine with high explosives.

 

[Eacaraxe]

The T-14 is by far the best tank in the world...

In about the same way the Tiger was "the best tank in the world" in WWII. Overengineered, a victim of horrendous mission creep in design, way too high a price per unit for the utility it offers, cost-prohibitive to support in operation, rushed into full production, and frankly already obsolete by the time enough numbers had been produced to otherwise have appreciable impact in engagement. Which meant its obvious, glaring, flaws which were conveniently overlooked during design and testing only became apparent and impactful on the battlefield, the very last place they should.

That is to say, it's about as far from the "best" tank in the world as one can get. As I said dozens of pages ago, having "the best tank in the world" means precisely jack shit if an army can't get them to an AO or logistically support them once they're there, and in sufficient numbers to achieve strategic objectives.

You don't need to destroy a tank: just disabling it renders it anywhere between mostly and totally ineffective (until repaired).

I'll see that and raise you; M-killing an opposing tank is worse for that force than K-killing it. Either way renders it combat-ineffective, but the former forces opposition to decide whether to attempt salvage and repair, or scuttle it. Either way, manpower, time, and materiel is spent on a combat-ineffective vehicle, likely in an exposed position for having been rendered combat-ineffective in the first place.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In about the same way the Tiger was "the best tank in the world" in WWII. Overengineered, a victim of horrendous mission creep in design, way too high a price per unit for the utility it offers, cost-prohibitive to support in operation, rushed into full production, and frankly already obsolete by the time enough numbers had been produced to otherwise have appreciable impact in engagement. Which meant its obvious, glaring, flaws which were conveniently overlooked during design and testing only became apparent and impactful on the battlefield, the very last place they should.

That is to say, it's about as far from the "best" tank in the world as one can get. As I said dozens of pages ago, having "the best tank in the world" means precisely jack shit if an army can't get them to an AO or logistically support them once they're there, and in sufficient numbers to achieve strategic objectives.

A quibble, but I'm led to believe that a lot of the problems with the Tiger were with how it was used (or rather that its problems weren't so much problems in its intended role). It ended up getting used for things it wasn't designed for (as a result of the Soviets putting up a lot more of a fight than expected), and suffered accordingly.

I don't believe that Russia, with it's relatively small GDP and apparently woefully prepared military has a whole stack of wonder weapons it just hasn't used, however.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A quibble, but I'm led to believe that a lot of the problems with the Tiger were with how it was used (or rather that its problems weren't so much problems in its intended role). It ended up getting used for things it wasn't designed for (as a result of the Soviets putting up a lot more of a fight than expected), and suffered accordingly.

Basically yeah. It was a hanger-queen of a tank specifically designed for spearhead attacks that would allow other forces to break through and then retire from the field. And on the rare occasion it got to be used for that, it was terrifyingly effective.

But it didn't have numbers, was put on the back foot early, and saw constant sustained action. Similarly, the T-14 might be "the best tank in the world", but like, at what role? How many do they have? The Best Tank in the World is just an expensive road bump if there's like, 20 of them. Pretty sure Ukraine has 40+ Javelins.

I don't believe that Russia, with it's relatively small GDP and apparently woefully prepared military has a whole stack of wonder weapons it just hasn't used, however.

I mean, the US uses the best it has whenever we do something stupid like pretend we can subjugate an entire country in a matter of days. You don't put the second tier gear on the vanguard unless you're overconfident to the point of incompetency.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, the EU is a country? Good thing Brexit happened, now the UK gets to have it's name separately on the list.

Also also, why isn't Taiwan after Switzerland, the rest are in alphabetical order. Unless it's listed for the Republic of China.

 

[Trunkage]

'They've just lost my vote"

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, the US uses the best it has whenever we do something stupid like pretend we can subjugate an entire country in a matter of days. You don't put the second tier gear on the vanguard unless you're overconfident to the point of incompetency.

Didnt it take 4 weeks to 'conquer' Iraq?

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I appreciate the irony that only four of these nations are democratic, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Armenia and India

 

[Generals]

I appreciate the irony that only four of these nations are democratic, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Armenia and India

I think the "Anti-" was just a typo

 

[Satinavian]

Hm, seems even they didn't want North Korea participating. And they invited both Azerbaijan and Armenia ? Now that will be fun.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Didnt it take 4 weeks to 'conquer' Iraq?

I mean, sure. We also don't have a border with them. My main point was that it almost felt like a tech demo for our wizbang shiny new tech, as long as said tech had high priced defense contracts attached.

 

[bluegate]

I appreciate the irony that only four of these nations are democratic, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Armenia and India

That's some real "The real nazis are the ones telling nazis to shut up!" energy in that naming there.

Sadly, if they stay this course then in a couple of generations their citizens will be thoroughly brainwashed to be against ... well, the world basically.

 

[Agema]

A quibble, but I'm led to believe that a lot of the problems with the Tiger were with how it was used (or rather that its problems weren't so much problems in its intended role). It ended up getting used for things it wasn't designed for (as a result of the Soviets putting up a lot more of a fight than expected), and suffered accordingly.

No, the problem of the Tiger tank was it horrendously overdesigned. That's why they stopped making it - compare to the Pz IV, which with upgrades conitnued production to the bitter end.

The Tiger was devastating on a battlefield... if it got there: and there lies the problem. It was hugely expensive due to the complexity: they could build about three Pz IVs or two Panthers for the same cost. This was then exacerbated by the fact that Tiger units would go into battles with only about a third to half the complement, because the complexity meaning that it kept breaking down: they tended to spend more time sitting around in repair bays sucking up technician time and resources.

 

[Agema]

snip

Disgraceful. Taiwan is completely out of place within that otherwise alphabetical list.

 

[Agema]

I'll see that and raise you; M-killing an opposing tank is worse for that force than K-killing it. Either way renders it combat-ineffective, but the former forces opposition to decide whether to attempt salvage and repair, or scuttle it. Either way, manpower, time, and materiel is spent on a combat-ineffective vehicle, likely in an exposed position for having been rendered combat-ineffective in the first place.

That's not true.

If a tank is permanently knocked out, all the resources put into it are a write-off and a fair chance the crew - with all that invested training and experience - have casualties too. If merely disabled, it's much cheaper and faster to repair, and the oh-so-valuable crew have probably survived. This is seen many times in WW2: the battle winner makes good a proportion of their tank losses very quickly, just with repairs.

In practice, they don't tend to tow away an immobilised tank on the battlefield: they hope they win the battle and remove it at their leisure. Repairs may be as simple as hours: this is a vast improvement on ordering a new one from the factory. If the opponents ends up controlling the battlefield, an abandoned tank is lost anyway. They can scuttle to prevent the enemy using it (the Germans destroyed nearly all their Tiger IIs this way rather than allow capture): the crew just set off some explosives inside it upon departing.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Basically yeah. It was a hanger-queen of a tank specifically designed for spearhead attacks that would allow other forces to break through and then retire from the field.

It was a hanger-queen of a tank specifically designed for spearhead attacks...that lacked the power/weight ratio, and corresponding on-road and off-road speed, to effectively spearhead attacks or create opportunities for lighter and faster attacks, which wasn't produced in enough numbers and fewer still made it to the battlefield to spearhead attacks.

And on the rare occasion it got to be used for that, it was terrifyingly effective.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it. Like I said, the "best tank" amounts to jack squat if a force can't get it to the area of operations or support it once its there. Tigers could only be transported by rail after removing half its road wheels and retracking it with specially-designed transport tracks. It was already an infamous pain in the ass to replace the tracks on a Tiger, let alone remove and replace road wheels, and German crews had to do it twice (once before loading it, once upon unloading it). That is, when rail transport was functioning, being railroads and rail bridges were a popular target for opposition forces and all.

Which left the Tiger to be transported on its own power. On-road was rarely an option being the thing was so heavy (despite its miraculously low ground pressure, attributable to those wheels and tracks) it destroyed roads and collapsed bridges, and off-road further reduced its speed and invoked the specter of wear to those damnable interleaved wheels and stress to its fickle and fragile transmission. And for it to be transported under its own power, meant it required fuel in a war in which the power that operated it faced perennial fuel shortages.

Hence why a third of Tiger losses were out-of-combat, and mostly attributable to mechanical failure.

But yes, when a Tiger could be driven out of its maintenance facility straight into combat, or when the front came to it, it did...okay. But at that point it was doing nothing a stationary gun emplacement couldn't do better at a fraction of the cost.

The reasons cited above are why most WWII historians who actually know their shit, low-key consider the single best tank of the war to be the Sherman.

That's not true...this is seen many times in WW2: the battle winner makes good a proportion of their tank losses very quickly, just with repairs.

Well, that's contingent upon a single thing which you admitted in the next paragraph: the forces sustaining losses are wagering they'll win the battle, and if they've don't they've handed their own materiel gift-wrapped to the enemy unless they scuttle it.

Which is what I'm pointing out: a combat-ineffective vehicle is a liability to that force for so long as the engagement lasts, or until it's scuttled. Either way incurs a cost in time, manpower, and materiel, and thereby the choice to employ those resources restoring a combat-ineffective vehicle to functionality, or to support combat-effective vehicles. That's simple cost-benefit analysis, based on potentially wildly-varying circumstances.

Also, the Germans scuttled Tiger I's and II's to prevent their capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses from being tested, and the tanks reverse engineered, by the Allies.