311
The Russians Bolted 1950s Naval Guns To Armored Tractors—And Produced Nearly Useless Combat Vehicles (www.forbes.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It’s apparent the Frankenstein’s monster of a combat vehicle is even less than the sum of its crude components.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 113 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Russia ditched communism for capitalism, and yachts, and stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    meanwhile, the massive warheads that supposedly still function still sit in their silos, waiting for Putin to have an off day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    I mean, most countries do that in various ways. There are two differences for Russia in that matter.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •