It starts with a non-military philosophy that life is precious and individual lives are more important than the state. Under Russian then Soviet then Russian culture, the Czar, the State and the Mothwrland have the place of primacy. All other considerations are secondary and ultimately irrelevant as it pursues the maximalist development of the primary objective. There had never been a strong civic culture in Russia and it shows in how they build IFVs and fight wars. Good article
This is just bigoted nonsense. Russians love their children at least as much as Americans do. You sound like a brainwashed Boomer from the 20th century.
The Russians have fought the Ukraine war slowly and patiently largely in order to minimize their own casualties, which they have succeeded in doing. I know, the mainstream press says otherwise. If you still believe anything they write...
He’s pulling them out of his ass because I’m pretty sure Tulsi is giving him the real numbers. I don’t know why that man does half the things he does.
I voted for him because the Dems have clearly become incompetent, deranged and anti-American but damn I could wish for a bit more soberness. Then again he’s dealing with so much crazy subversion it might just be the only move right now. I leave some things to faith.
All I know is that in my country I wouldn’t trust any politician with my child. I think you have that right. They are all looking after their own self interest. They should be forced to wear waistcoats with all their sponsors labels on.
You can’t compare Soviet era offensive philosophy with anything that came before it or after it. It was unique.
In any case, the Russians just embarrassed us on the battlefield and the fact that one of our troop transports is better than one of theirs doesn’t seem that germane when they’ve just demonstrated to the world that their grit and toughness still triumphs over the high tech homosexuality of the American military.
We have great material, it’s our soldiers that are weak and gay
If only we did. Russian tanks outclass our outdated Abrams (autoloaders for one example). Their EW systems, AD systems, fighterplanes, array of hypersonics, poseidons, all outclass the US. We lost the technical arms race years ago but we're too arrogant and prideful to do what the OP describes the Russians are doing with their IFV.
This piece doesn't portray Russian weakness but strength. Anyone who can't see that should clean their specs.
Sending soldiers to die unnecessarily isn't "grit" or "toughness". It's stupid.
American soldiers don't lack grit or toughness, as much as slack-jawed internet idiots like to claim that. They lack intelligent leadership at the highest levels.
Its 73mm semi-auto gun to fire HE, co-axial MG and AT3 Sagger anti-tank guided missile gave it lethal firepower options for all target-types, when other infantry had only an armoured box with a defensive machine-gun.
But BMP-1 was introduced in 1966.
Russia has not progressed much since then, but the world has moved on.
I remember years ago watching a 'promotional' video of the BMP-3. It demonstrated it's cannon and coaxial auto cannon.
I remember thinking back then 'my...that auto cannon sure is inaccurate...and that main cannon doesn't fire very quickly...and I wonder what happens if a light vehicle with that many different weapons and ammunition stacked inside it gets it itself.'
Now many years later we have many, many videos of what happens when someone hits a BMP-3 😬...
Design differences point mainly at two different philosophies.
The Russians counted on being able to generate more bodies at low cost to throw at the front.
Meanwhile, the west focused on smaller, better trained, better equipped militaries, where the embedded cost of each combatant is sufficiently high to warrant better protection.
Attritional warfare as practiced by the Russians is a nonstarter in functioning democracies due to the sheer political cost that entails. In an autocratic regime, the loss of millions may warrant as little as a shrug - see Stalins famous quote re same.
Notably however, is that western equipment while a lot more finicky and harder to maintain is also easier to use. Note the UI differences in Russian radars, EW systems, SAMs, etc. vs the fire and forget built into Patriot, Javelin, etc.
Don’t fully agree. For much of the existence of NATO, most militaries in the west were based on a small corps of professional soldiers to be supplemented by the draft and a large corps of men who had trained for a year or two in the armed forces.
Fully professional armies only emerged in the west after the fall of the wall and then mostly as a cost saving measure. Those remaining rumps of various armed forces were subsequently hollowed out to pay for other priorities, including social benefits.
No. The point behind the bombers was to avoid attrition on the ground by destroying enemy production, logistics, and forces before the enemy could bring equipment and forces to bear.
Surely they wouldn’t have encumbered bombers with parachutes, multiple machine gun emplacements, etc if the sole aim was perhaps delivering some bombs to the intended target?
No, the survival odds of bomber crews were sufficiently low that few made it through the war without dying. Bombers were taught to fly in formations to concentrate firepower, they innovated with bombing computers to reduce the number of sorties to level a target, etc.
Yes, there were elements of attritional warfare present in WWII - whether it was the strangling of the Japanese economy by effectively blockading the main islands with tons of US submarines or the construction of more liberty ships that the Germans could sink.
But the main thought process most bombing in WWII was to destroy precious Axis resources before they got to the front. Plenty people were sick of WWII, which was one of the reasons that the dual atomic attacks on Japan were authorized in the first place.
Is it, though? To what extent does the military actually design and engineer its own military hardware? It has always been my understanding that the military sets the specs and the civilian defense contractors come up with the designs and engineering to meet those specs (with the military having input throughout the process, of course). Is this not the case? Or am I completely off target?
Russian vehicles fit a philosophy, not humans. The BMPs are cool, very low silhouette, fast, pretty maneuverable. But they’re a nightmare to sit inside cramped like sardines for hours, and have the ‘genius’ designs like BMP-1 placing its external fuel tanks on the rear exit doors, or the BMP-3 having infantry sitting and exiting over the engine, to become a fire-roasted treat. They’re not meant to survive. Soviet/Russian weapons were always designed to be easy to operate by (literally) illiterate third world terrorists, but care as much about crew comfort and survivability as the Russian and Soviet empires always cared about its people - absolutely zero.
Hi Seth, yeah, I would think the US would generally want to avoid our stuff from falling into Russian hands. But the Bradley is aging. I would be more concerned with China's copies because they are actually quite good facsimiles. The U.S. Army is in the process of replacing the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle with the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV), also known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). General Dynamics Land Systems and American Rheinmetall Vehicles are among the two finalists competing to develop the XM30. In addition, while Russia might have the brain power to reverse engineer, there are simply components that they can't source.
I doubt they have the spare engineering space to put teams on the Bradley to reverse engineer it. It’s bad if they got one with the electronics still operational but even that is old school compared to the latest version. Can Russia get the chips to RE the gunnery control systems? Lot of obstacles there given they are almost bankrupt.
The M2A2 ODS models were being phased out when I joined the Army in 2001 (pre-9/11). That was the model that I initially trained on. The model we took to Iraq was the M2A3, which had the advanced thermal sights and improved stabilization computer, the commander’s independent viewer, etc. If they are so impressed at an M2A2 ODS then their minds would be completely blown by an M2A3.
I'm impressed the Russians are confident and humble enough to realize when they need to fix a bad design. Don't see the US military commenting in public about all of the other Russian hardware that currently outclasses ours. A bit more humility and a serious attempt to fix our utterly broken procurement and supply chains would impress me more than crowing over an impressive display of Russian humility.
Hard disagree on all fronts. Soviet Communism didn't eradicate the Russian character or deep rooted psyche, it infiltrated and co-opted them. Not even sure how we were embarrassed by a not uncommon but unfortunate battlefield event and really curious to see where you got your information that the Russians are gritty and tough. Not a lot of evidence out there for that. They went from being considered the second best army in the world, to the second best army in Ukraine and now they are the second best army in Russia. They have been poorly trained and equipped and morale has always sucked in the Russian armed forces. You know they have shooters who stand behind the front lines and shoot the people who run, right? It's a widespread thing. They've been doing that since WW2.
Dude, do you even know any American soldiers? Clearly not.
Whilst I know for sure which I'd rather be deployed again, you do ignore four huge considerations for long lasting high intensity warfare:
1) Cost
2) Production time
3) Supply chains
4) Logistics
You *do* consider speed and amphibiousness, but don't consider how important those considerations are on a long front line criss crossed with rivers.
On all of these, the Russian option seems substantially better.
Don't get me wrong, I think Ukraine is strongly morally in the right, and from an individual soldier's perspective the Bradley is dramatically better, but war is more than individual engagements.
Tanks are irrelevant in the 21st century. They are the battleships of land warfare, and have been made obsolete by drones.
Every $3 million Bradley that gets taken out by a $10k drone is a huge win. Tank crews are demoralized and for good reason. In the 21st century, around tank is an armored corpse carrier.
It starts with a non-military philosophy that life is precious and individual lives are more important than the state. Under Russian then Soviet then Russian culture, the Czar, the State and the Mothwrland have the place of primacy. All other considerations are secondary and ultimately irrelevant as it pursues the maximalist development of the primary objective. There had never been a strong civic culture in Russia and it shows in how they build IFVs and fight wars. Good article
Well said, Josh.
This is just bigoted nonsense. Russians love their children at least as much as Americans do. You sound like a brainwashed Boomer from the 20th century.
The Russians have fought the Ukraine war slowly and patiently largely in order to minimize their own casualties, which they have succeeded in doing. I know, the mainstream press says otherwise. If you still believe anything they write...
You outdo yourself with this gem;
"The Russians have fought the Ukraine war slowly and patiently largely in order to minimize their own casualties, which they have succeeded in doing."
@Rurik Skywalker lol
Threeretardsfighting.jpg
He’s pulling them out of his ass because I’m pretty sure Tulsi is giving him the real numbers. I don’t know why that man does half the things he does.
I voted for him because the Dems have clearly become incompetent, deranged and anti-American but damn I could wish for a bit more soberness. Then again he’s dealing with so much crazy subversion it might just be the only move right now. I leave some things to faith.
How do you know Trump is lying? His mouth is moving.
All I know is that in my country I wouldn’t trust any politician with my child. I think you have that right. They are all looking after their own self interest. They should be forced to wear waistcoats with all their sponsors labels on.
Trump should be wearing a Russian flag not the Stars and Stripes.
This is a really effete take.
You can’t compare Soviet era offensive philosophy with anything that came before it or after it. It was unique.
In any case, the Russians just embarrassed us on the battlefield and the fact that one of our troop transports is better than one of theirs doesn’t seem that germane when they’ve just demonstrated to the world that their grit and toughness still triumphs over the high tech homosexuality of the American military.
We have great material, it’s our soldiers that are weak and gay
If only we did. Russian tanks outclass our outdated Abrams (autoloaders for one example). Their EW systems, AD systems, fighterplanes, array of hypersonics, poseidons, all outclass the US. We lost the technical arms race years ago but we're too arrogant and prideful to do what the OP describes the Russians are doing with their IFV.
This piece doesn't portray Russian weakness but strength. Anyone who can't see that should clean their specs.
Sending soldiers to die unnecessarily isn't "grit" or "toughness". It's stupid.
American soldiers don't lack grit or toughness, as much as slack-jawed internet idiots like to claim that. They lack intelligent leadership at the highest levels.
Yes. The western army wants all its soldiers back. It doesn’t manage, but by sticking to this goal it definitely increases the number.
BMP-1 was a complete game-changer.
Its 73mm semi-auto gun to fire HE, co-axial MG and AT3 Sagger anti-tank guided missile gave it lethal firepower options for all target-types, when other infantry had only an armoured box with a defensive machine-gun.
But BMP-1 was introduced in 1966.
Russia has not progressed much since then, but the world has moved on.
Brilliant Wes, thank you.
I remember years ago watching a 'promotional' video of the BMP-3. It demonstrated it's cannon and coaxial auto cannon.
I remember thinking back then 'my...that auto cannon sure is inaccurate...and that main cannon doesn't fire very quickly...and I wonder what happens if a light vehicle with that many different weapons and ammunition stacked inside it gets it itself.'
Now many years later we have many, many videos of what happens when someone hits a BMP-3 😬...
Design differences point mainly at two different philosophies.
The Russians counted on being able to generate more bodies at low cost to throw at the front.
Meanwhile, the west focused on smaller, better trained, better equipped militaries, where the embedded cost of each combatant is sufficiently high to warrant better protection.
Attritional warfare as practiced by the Russians is a nonstarter in functioning democracies due to the sheer political cost that entails. In an autocratic regime, the loss of millions may warrant as little as a shrug - see Stalins famous quote re same.
Notably however, is that western equipment while a lot more finicky and harder to maintain is also easier to use. Note the UI differences in Russian radars, EW systems, SAMs, etc. vs the fire and forget built into Patriot, Javelin, etc.
Don’t fully agree. For much of the existence of NATO, most militaries in the west were based on a small corps of professional soldiers to be supplemented by the draft and a large corps of men who had trained for a year or two in the armed forces.
Fully professional armies only emerged in the west after the fall of the wall and then mostly as a cost saving measure. Those remaining rumps of various armed forces were subsequently hollowed out to pay for other priorities, including social benefits.
Just blocked your stupid bullshit and all your followers.
No. The point behind the bombers was to avoid attrition on the ground by destroying enemy production, logistics, and forces before the enemy could bring equipment and forces to bear.
Surely they wouldn’t have encumbered bombers with parachutes, multiple machine gun emplacements, etc if the sole aim was perhaps delivering some bombs to the intended target?
No, the survival odds of bomber crews were sufficiently low that few made it through the war without dying. Bombers were taught to fly in formations to concentrate firepower, they innovated with bombing computers to reduce the number of sorties to level a target, etc.
Yes, there were elements of attritional warfare present in WWII - whether it was the strangling of the Japanese economy by effectively blockading the main islands with tons of US submarines or the construction of more liberty ships that the Germans could sink.
But the main thought process most bombing in WWII was to destroy precious Axis resources before they got to the front. Plenty people were sick of WWII, which was one of the reasons that the dual atomic attacks on Japan were authorized in the first place.
All that technological innovation and built-in survivability will be gone when the best engineers leave the military.
This is true
Is it, though? To what extent does the military actually design and engineer its own military hardware? It has always been my understanding that the military sets the specs and the civilian defense contractors come up with the designs and engineering to meet those specs (with the military having input throughout the process, of course). Is this not the case? Or am I completely off target?
Russian vehicles fit a philosophy, not humans. The BMPs are cool, very low silhouette, fast, pretty maneuverable. But they’re a nightmare to sit inside cramped like sardines for hours, and have the ‘genius’ designs like BMP-1 placing its external fuel tanks on the rear exit doors, or the BMP-3 having infantry sitting and exiting over the engine, to become a fire-roasted treat. They’re not meant to survive. Soviet/Russian weapons were always designed to be easy to operate by (literally) illiterate third world terrorists, but care as much about crew comfort and survivability as the Russian and Soviet empires always cared about its people - absolutely zero.
Seems like you’re burying the lede…it’s bad they have the tank right? How long does it take to reverse engineer?
Hi Seth, yeah, I would think the US would generally want to avoid our stuff from falling into Russian hands. But the Bradley is aging. I would be more concerned with China's copies because they are actually quite good facsimiles. The U.S. Army is in the process of replacing the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle with the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV), also known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). General Dynamics Land Systems and American Rheinmetall Vehicles are among the two finalists competing to develop the XM30. In addition, while Russia might have the brain power to reverse engineer, there are simply components that they can't source.
Very interesting! Thanks!
I doubt they have the spare engineering space to put teams on the Bradley to reverse engineer it. It’s bad if they got one with the electronics still operational but even that is old school compared to the latest version. Can Russia get the chips to RE the gunnery control systems? Lot of obstacles there given they are almost bankrupt.
The M2A2 ODS models were being phased out when I joined the Army in 2001 (pre-9/11). That was the model that I initially trained on. The model we took to Iraq was the M2A3, which had the advanced thermal sights and improved stabilization computer, the commander’s independent viewer, etc. If they are so impressed at an M2A2 ODS then their minds would be completely blown by an M2A3.
I'm impressed the Russians are confident and humble enough to realize when they need to fix a bad design. Don't see the US military commenting in public about all of the other Russian hardware that currently outclasses ours. A bit more humility and a serious attempt to fix our utterly broken procurement and supply chains would impress me more than crowing over an impressive display of Russian humility.
“American Exceptionalism” means never having to acknowledge any of this.
I don’t want them to know this. I fear now they’ll copy it.
They won't.
They do not have the money, nor the concern for the lives of disposable infantry.
Sure, the BMP-4 will pick up a few ideas from the Bradley and implement them badly.
It might enter service some time in 2035 - or it might be another T-14 and only ever appear in parades through Moscow.
Russia as we know it won’t be the same Russia next year I’m guessing.
That’s reassuring.
Hard disagree on all fronts. Soviet Communism didn't eradicate the Russian character or deep rooted psyche, it infiltrated and co-opted them. Not even sure how we were embarrassed by a not uncommon but unfortunate battlefield event and really curious to see where you got your information that the Russians are gritty and tough. Not a lot of evidence out there for that. They went from being considered the second best army in the world, to the second best army in Ukraine and now they are the second best army in Russia. They have been poorly trained and equipped and morale has always sucked in the Russian armed forces. You know they have shooters who stand behind the front lines and shoot the people who run, right? It's a widespread thing. They've been doing that since WW2.
Dude, do you even know any American soldiers? Clearly not.
THis was a reply to Jamal above...
I also suspect that Russian vehicles lack sufficient quality control along the entire assembly line.
Whilst I know for sure which I'd rather be deployed again, you do ignore four huge considerations for long lasting high intensity warfare:
1) Cost
2) Production time
3) Supply chains
4) Logistics
You *do* consider speed and amphibiousness, but don't consider how important those considerations are on a long front line criss crossed with rivers.
On all of these, the Russian option seems substantially better.
Don't get me wrong, I think Ukraine is strongly morally in the right, and from an individual soldier's perspective the Bradley is dramatically better, but war is more than individual engagements.
Rah, rah.
Tanks are irrelevant in the 21st century. They are the battleships of land warfare, and have been made obsolete by drones.
Every $3 million Bradley that gets taken out by a $10k drone is a huge win. Tank crews are demoralized and for good reason. In the 21st century, around tank is an armored corpse carrier.
I would sort of expect them to become more of a area drone denial
"For a country that used to mock NATO gear as bloated and overengineered, that’s a hell of a pivot."
But it IS a pivot.
The USA's response to novel technologies and failed design concepts has often been outright denial.
I'm interested to see what changes Russia makes to its next IFV, whether that turns out to be some T14 variant or something else.