How Russia Quietly Revolutionised Warfare

If someone breaks into your home and all you have is a nail-gun and claw hammer, you’ll make due with those. It’s to late to go to the store and buy a gun. You need this tool right here and now and you’re going to make the best with what you have.

(Drone / Tank)
One has a short the other a long ramp up time / one has a short the other a long serviceable life:

—Drones: are a product where you have several manufacturers and you do not need a huge lead time to begin mass producing them. They are a product where you have a large civilian market you can piggy back off of. You develop, test and field state of the art drones, keeping up with the newest there is, but DO NOT mass field these since there is a very high chance that you will spend a lot and by the time you ever want to use them, they will be obsolete (you’ll not even want them). The tech regards sensors, radio, computing, the software controlling them is rapidly evolving, and there is a huge civilian manufacturing base. It doesn’t require massive specialized facilities to be built. You want a large enough stockpile to deal with the threat you think you might face in some near term scenario and ramp up as the likelihood for conflict increases.

—Tanks: require a very long lead time. You cannot crap a new tank overnight. In fact, it took Russia a few YEARS just to ramp up production of pre-existing tank designs. In the US, you have Watervliet that makes the gun tubes, that’s it. It takes time to produce these. It takes time to get the tooling, foundry work, and lines in place to manufacture a tank and there is no civilian manufacturing base you can piggy back off of: https://v.wpimg.pl/NzcyODU2YRsCGzl3eklsDkFDbS08EGJYFlt1ZnoLfUIbTH18elQnFgYLKjQ6HCkIFgkuMyUcPhZMGD8tekR_VQcQPDQ5UzdVBhQtITEdKB5bGyx0ZAFjTVVOKmlhBCtDTkF9fGUfex9TGHhzZwp7TAVObTk

An example from us: In Iraq we used a HMMWV which was in the beginning not even up-armored in most cases. Then we fielded up-armored versions that were OK, but they never were ideal for the threat we were facing. They were something we could produce in mass fairly quickly, like the Russians mass producing tanks they have a lot of (based on T72) and with pre-existing designs and manufacturing lines. There “new” tanks are basically a T72 on steroids.

Additionally, the West is casualty adverse. When we have 5,000 US casualties as in Iraq, that’s a political disaster. 13 US casualties at once is a political disaster. That’s not a bad thing. I like the fact that our kids lives mean something and we’re willing to go to EXTREMES to keep our folks alive. I would much rather see us throwing money and material at a problem, than human flesh and blood. The Russians are willing to accept the casualties they are taking today (they don’t really have a choice unless they want to acquiesce to us), we would not be OK with that.

That said, even we cannot snap our fingers and have a new MBT and IFV over night. It takes time to develop such a system and to field it. It is precisely because these systems have a long lead time but are an essential part of the battlefield that we need to field a new system that gives us the same capabilities which the M1 once gave us.

Most nations cannot throw material (leverage tech, industry, manufacturing base, resources) at a problem like we can, and even we can’t make things happen over night on many of these complex systems which require extensive military specialized industrial input to manufacture, like a tank.

We have R&D, an industrial volume, a manufacturing base, high tech, and access to resources like no one else enjoys. Only China rivals or passes us today in some aspects: a few enabling technologies and definitely the size of their manufacturing base ~2 times ours, which is scary. Even a more primitive tank like a WWII Sherman, and with a concerted national effort (total mobilization), it took 2 years to squeeze out a prototype (1939 - 1941), 3 years before we had a high volume production (1942), and 4 YEARS (1943) to reach maximum production: http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/data/sherman_production.html

Just like you go to war with what you have, not what you wish you had; a nation when it mobilizes for war does the best it can given the industrial, tech and manufacturing capabilities they have, not what they wish they had.

Reality vs. what we wish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INFavIUmhcE

How about we make sure there is no “near peer.”

We leverage our tech, size of industry and manufacturing, access to resources, our wealth to afford the “most of the best.”

Where we have gaps or shortfalls, we leverage our allies with their capabilities to ensure we maintain a profound advantage and minimize our casualties.

I’m not addressing the changes in our society and how that impacts our force, or the poor decisions our politicians make, but let’s ensure that materially our troops have what it takes to dominate the battle-space.

This is not a sport.

I am not looking to make it challenging for us or fair for the enemy.

Let’s keep it like this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LLPs4o06lrM

Russia proves why we need a new tank.

It takes YEARS to develop, produce and field such a weapon system.

There is no civilian industry for many components, no off the shelf solution, and much of what is required to manufacture a tank needs long lead times to set up.

Do you have a foundry in your backyard? How about a gun tube, what aisle is that on, in your local Walmart? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watervliet_Arsenal

It has taken Russia YEARS just to ramp up production of a pre-existing design, where they are likely refurbishing and modernizing older T72s they have in storage (what the T90 is based on).

We too have huge stockpiles of M1’s: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot

The Russians are pumping out a lot more tanks as they are getting shot up.

Quantity is a quality in it’s own right.

But it is not what we should rely on to win a fight. The lives of our people matter.

And what do you think we should use? Bigger tanks? Jeeps?

To kill a tank requires a sizeable charge. Small quadcopters with 5 lb explosives have little use against a tank, unless you’re hitting Russians in the back of the turret and lighting up their autolaoder. But ours don’t have that vulnerability. You need a good sized drone payload to actually kill most Western tanks.

Anti-drone systems are going to come online quick, and it’ll likely end up as something organic to the line unit - either a system mounted to the tank/Brad, or on its own dedicated platform. EW system, kinetic defense, and likely a directed energy system as well once that’s fielded. And this’ll handle all the small drones that you see in the trenches now. Infantry won’t function without this umbrella of protection. Which will need tanks or sizeable systems to be mobile enough. Then big drones like the ones these US have had for decades, will be left to more dedicated ADA, but those are your actual tank killers.

But our doctrine doesn’t call for trench warfare. We aren’t sitting on hundreds of miles of front line, throwing pallets of drones back and forth. We won’t not have a significant air presence like both sides over there. What did we do in the Gulf War? We spent 40 days bombing Iraq before the ground went in and finished the fight in a week. By the time we would be landing in Russia, we’d have bombed everything for a week across 10,000 miles of their borders. They wouldn’t even know where to move defenses, much less have anything effective.

Ukraine has shown how weak Russia really is, and China is big but inexperienced and only has derivative, untested equipment. Both of them would suffer the same fate as Iraq, albeit maybe resist a bit longer, but that’s it.

A design which incorporates:

1.) A variable height tracked vehicle.

In an IED/mine threat area the vehicle is raised (1/r^3 means a small increase in distance makes a HUGE difference). Under belly armor added, and a V-shaped hull deflects the blast and causes the energy to be taken in over time vs. all at once with a flat bottom vehicle as today with an M1/2.

2.) Use of hybrid technology and massive power supply.

A sovereign dual drive system (diesel - electric) allows the vehicle to move even after the diesel or transmission have been shot out. But, these also significantly reduce the thermal and acoustic signature of the vehicle when operating in electric only. Furthermore, it allows for many hours of use without the need to start the vehicle because of batteries that are being drained. Finally, whether it is a soft kill defensive system for ATGMs (jamming SACLOS, a laser or mmWR false target generation), jamming for IEDs, or jamming the command loop of a drone, FBCB2/BFT, modern vehicles are hungry for electrical power, and the trend is only for more.

3.) Modular armor.

Instead of welded on armor boxes as with the M1 (turret front and sides, hull front), the vehicle can be used in its naked configuration where it is very light and easy to transport via air, rail, truck, or barge and is able to cross most bridges even in third world nations as well as squeeze through a 10 foot passage. In its light configuration you have STANAG level 3 on the sides, top, and rear, and level 4 on the frontal arc (30 degrees to each side). You're prioritizing mobility over surviveability, which sometimes is necessitated. In some cases the massive armor is irrelevant (i.e. there is no AT threat) so you're hauling a lot of steel around for nothing. But there are two more reasons why this is a good idea: First, this tank is easily repairable when damaged, i,e. the damaged armor panel is simply replaced. Secondly, as threats change and you need to tweak the armor to optimize if for the various AT threats HEAT, EFP, Sabot you don't need to pull this vehicle off the line, it can be done in their field, quickly and easily.

4.) Simply incorporate newer technologies and design features that were not even conceived when the M1/2 were designed.

For instance, the vehicle is built as a fully digital and network capable platform from the ground up. Give the vehicle 360 degree vision for all crew members from inside. Use newer 7075T6 Aluminum alloy which wasn't around in the 1970s when the M1/2 were designed (significantly stronger material = weight/thickness of material reduction). Switch to a diesel and retire the turbine. The turbine is far beyond its practical life and while turbines theoretically bring many advantages with them (weight savings being the primary one), today most threats have thermals and the turbine has a huge heat signature. Put the new diesel in transverse, saves space. Add external fire suppression capabilities so no crew member needs to expose themselves and a simple Molotov cocktail can't knock out an "invincible" M1/2. Design the turret to incorporate active hard and soft kill systems, which the M1/2 were not. That is why we have the impractical current design of how Trophy is mounted: https://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/02/M1-Abrams-with-Trophy-APS-9ed777416ebc9fe34bed41b570f3b181-768x384.jpg

— Surround vision
— Fully digital and network capable vehicle
— Incorporate hard and soft kill defense systems in the design
— Switch to diesel
— Use newer materials
— External fire suppression
— Improved protective seating

Ukraine is a nation of 41,000,000 that had been militarily pumped up by us for 7 years before the war (not a weak or soft target).

NATO has been hemorrhaging money and equipment like never before in its entire history.

Ukraine relied on foreign fighters we are essentially paying for (thousands from around the world, but many from South America)

Russia has mostly met their political (stop NATO expansion) and military objectives (seize Eastern ethnic Russian areas). They have done so despite maintaining their presence in the Middle East, Armenia, and Africa and without a total population and economic mobilization for war (i.e. 7.1% GDP). Their economy is growing, despite our sanctions and this war.

You are making the typical assumption that it’s Russia’s goal to seize all of Ukraine, or keep advancing elsewhere. That is our “propaganda.” Junk, like WMD in Iraq, to get the masses behind this war.

I agree, we thought them to be weak, that is why we ignored them and just did whatever we wanted regards NATO East expansion, despite them consistently and very vocally saying this is a problem for them for the past 28 YEARS.

They are no match for us or NATO and all these talking heads discussing Russia rolling into Poland or the Baltic states a while back, are tools. They were discussing scenarios that are not even remotely possible but which get the people worried and supporting this war based on some fictional scenario that is about as likely as the “War of the Worlds.” It is funny though, how we want to talk about how Russia is weak, but then in the same breath talk about Russia rolling into NATO (which outnumbers them about 3:1, even now with Russian partial mobilization).

However, I do not think they are as weak as we thought.

I don’t think we expected them to stop us (why we made the gamble), and I do not think we expected them to hold out like they are (the long war).

This will end with no NATO for Ukraine, Ukraine losing a lot of real estate and population, a major port city, industrial area and being a total basket case for many years (debt, infrastructure, demographics, cripples, investors staying away/not like 2014).

We’ll be left making movies where we win the war with a duck lipped 120 lbs female action hero that single handily kills 100 Russians about to attack an orphanage with VX gas. Our experts will be talking about imaginary casualty reports where Russia lost 144 million people and not a single glorious Abrams tank was destroyed, no F16 was brought down, and Patriot had a 99.99% hit rate. It’s true - fact checked!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.