It’s apparent the Frankenstein’s monster of a combat vehicle is even less than the sum of its crude components.
Crazy that two years ago we thought this was the second best military in the world. They’ve currently got the second best military in Ukraine.
Nah, not second best. That’s probably just Americans that still haven’t registered that the Soviet Union is gone. Generally there was an awareness that the glory days of the USSR was gone and that Russia’s small economy could only maintain a crude army.
However, people didn’t think that it was THIS bad. This is bad even for Russia’s military budget, where one can only assume that there was a lot of corruption on all levels to produce the state of the army at the start of the war. And of course, with things like this, it just got worse by the day.
i mean the budget is not the determining factor here. The russian economy is able to support a strong military, since they have a lot of resources and can produce a lot of shit by themselves. So even if the budget is low nominally it should suffice. Also Russia had a fairly good GDP per capita, far exceeding that of Ukraine and on par with many EU countries.
The issues are corruption, nepotism, lack of career chances for dedicated people and so on.
One might even say corporatism, given their direct rulers are the billionaires who came out on top in the rush to scavenge the corpse of the USSR.
Russia’s military budget in size is sufficient for anything Russia would need defense-wise (and even aggression-wise, TBF) to a full extent. It’s just that most of the money was being stolen through all these years. It’s rotten to the bone.
About glory days - USSR’s military was really something “second best” somewhere in the 50s, when it was a system built for some actual overarching doctrine.
With every year passing Soviet bureaucracy was more and more entangling itself into a knot of financing and prestige and cabinet power struggles, so by 80s it would have like 4-8 simultaneously produced and operated models of tanks, with similar technology and details etc, but similar wouldn’t mean interchangeable, in fact there would be almost no interchangeable details between them. It was similar in any other area. Standardization (which Commies love to present as planned economy’s advantage) was a farce.
The bureaucratic system responsible for every part of the system would fight tooth and nail for some external benefits and provide some external service, soldiers and students would be used on harvest campaigns and housing construction, and the main purpose would be cemented, never reevaluated (I mean, everything changes in 5 years in real world in any area, and the Soviet doctrine has not evolved much between Korea and Afghanistan), and in fact lost.
Which is why, say, Soviet personnel carriers wouldn’t protect against anything. Their purpose was to move fast, be amphibious, be hermetic, be cheap to produce. Cause the plan was that after all the boom-boom stops in the Global Thermonuclear War, one would need to move infantry over burnt irradiated land, fast.
It really was in planning and function a bit like the Galactic Empire, be it the Azimov’s one or the Star Wars one.
meanwhile, the massive warheads that supposedly still function still sit in their silos, waiting for Putin to have an off day.
If I were as morally bankrupt as Putin I would be selling them left and right to the highest bidder
Russia spent a lot of advertising and propaganda money to seem that way. T14 and SU57 were essentially just ads trying to say ‘we’re still relevant and modern!’ It benefited their arms sales, as well as some diplomatic advantages. But that all falls away when it’s actually put to the test.
I mean, most countries do that in various ways. There are two differences for Russia in that matter.
-
They actually had a lot of Soviet weapons still around. Like, in quantity Russia was playing in the big leagues. The issue was just, of course, that a lot of it was unusable and got worse over the years with lacking maintenance and with technology getting more and more obsolete. Nevertheless, Russia had certainly a lot of arms and vehicles.
-
The Soviet Union was quite powerful and the image has still stuck with people and Russia did its best with parades and all to pretend that the glory is still with Russia. I put a bit of that blame also on American media repeating the image of the powerful Soviet Union as a dangerous adversary.
The war in Ukraine made it clearer than ever that Russia is only a shadow of what the Soviet Union once was in power projection.
Eh, you can never be too sure that they’re that incapable. There was a post from some Ukrainians the other day, saying that despite all the articles deeming the Russian military tragically useless, there are still some bloodthirsty and horrendous people fighting for Russia out there on the battlefield. And it is a bloody battlefield for both sides, whether the people there want to be a part of it or not.
But on the other hand I suppose it is reassuring for western countries citizens to read all the articles saying how weak Russia might be.
I don’t think anyone considers them not to be incredibly dangerous. But in terms of logistics, organization, strategy, and leadership they have proven to be nothing like they were imagined.
I am no expert but my understanding is that plain old artillery is the main tool being used in this conflict, and that’s like how long have people been shooting cannons at one another? If you have 20x as much artillery as your more competent opponent you’re still very dangerous.
I wish Ukraine the best vs the invaders and I think they will prevail, but there is no doubt the cost will be high.
I mean we now see a war between two conventional forces where neither has a clear technological advantage. We havent had that in a long time. It is very well possible, that shooting cannons at each other will still be up to date in terms of tactics in 500 years like it was 500 years ago.
That video is absolutely wild, the headline is actually overselling this POS. It looks like the turret is about to fall off.
This worked great before. In Command & Conquer: Generals.
What make gun ‘naval’? Apart from the obvious mounted on a boat part. Any design or ballistic issues warranting the naval designation?
Where’s the video? I can’t see one in the article
https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1698638459450032594
This link worked for me
I guess that’s not working for me. I tried in a couple of browsers but no luck. Do you have the video URL?
The tweet is at https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1698702830830227759
And the Ukrainian opposition https://twitter.com/WarVehicle/status/1698636639805821019
