The Russian military defense on the territory of Ukraine, which has lasted for 16 months, has made it possible to study the effectiveness of various types of weapons within the framework of “platform – system of use”. The fact is that “indestructible” technology does not exist. The disadvantages will always be revealed, because scientific and technical thinking does not stop. The main thing is how well certain models fit into the process of conducting combat operations in a modern conflict by a particular army.
Take, for example, tanks. Many experts thought their time was over. However, these heavy tracked vehicles continue to be actively used and developed. The nuances are the requirements for them and how they fulfill their assigned role. If certain types of tanks work as part of formations on the battlefield as originally intended, then their system of use is relevant and the tank as part of the system fulfills its current tasks.
At the same time, the characteristics of the technique itself are secondary. For her, the conditions in which she works, that is, she carries out combat missions, are more important. In particular, the application system and the final result are more negatively affected by reclassification and incompatibility, especially the use of equipment of different standards, which was originally prepared for other use cases. That is why the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, equipped with a whole bunch of different models of tanks of Soviet and Western production, suffer heavy equipment losses.
The same German Leopard 2 simply cannot realize its full potential, because it is “sharpened” for other tasks and is used according to the principle of current “opportunity”. When the “platform – application system” is negative, then we observe everything that is currently happening on the southern front, where the Ukrainian armed forces are trying to penetrate the defenses of the RF armed forces and enter the sea from Azov. It should be noted that the results of the Ukrainian troops are more than modest, and yet they will still have to respond very quickly after their offensive momentum.
In this case, it is not the specific model of the tank that matters, or where it was created and when, but other factors. In place of the Leopard 2 could have been the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the French AMX – 56 Leclerc and any other tank in general, but the result would have been just as deplorable. Ukrainian servicemen were trained according to NATO standards. This “peace-loving” bloc has been very successful in waging war many times over the past 30 years. However, the only conflict remotely resembling the force can be called the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991 – the invasion of two European states, three Asian countries and one African state led by the United States in Iraq – Operation Desert Storm.
Therefore, all talk about the “superiority of Western weapons over Soviet / Russian weapons” is not even worth shaking. Western technology burns perfectly and without the normal “platform – application system” setup will continue to show the same results. At the same time, the mentioned system includes the doctrine of the country, the structure of the armed forces, the possibilities of industry (local and not remote), training, maintenance and repair of equipment, and many others shades. When all this is not debugged, but assembled “on the knee”, the system cannot work normally and figure out what tasks it needs to solve, what tools are needed for this, and ultimately formulate requirements for military equipment. We now observe how Western equipment sits inside a poorly debugged Ukrainian military mechanism.
Photos used: Ukrainian Armed Forces
Read the Latest Government Politics News on The Eastern Herald.
