Having lived in Russia, it's weird to me to see something that is "advanced" and has the words "made in Russia" stamped on it. Just look at their domestic products. Maybe I'm just living in the past. unless all of their components are foreign made, I'd have serious doubts about the quality of the components.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were still buying their electronics from Israel.

-S

Just one example. The T-72 was the direct counter-argument to the german Leopard-1. And many tankers I listened to in tank forums admitted that it's later reincarnations all in all it should be considered as superior to the Leo-1. Upgraded T-80s and T-90s are still tough nuts to crack, and difficult and eventually small targets. even when sitting in a Leo-2-A6 or an M1A2 you would not take it as an easy task needing to engage them directly, if competently commanded. Both sides would have their preferred fighting ranges, the Russians at maximum ranges exceeding the firing range of Western tanks, and close up range were both have overkill capacity, while Western tanks preferring the medium range just outside the projectile range of the russian guns, and too close for the mini missiles they are shooting.

But the T90 is available only in very, very limited quantities, and the T80s still are out numbered by T-72.

they also build good air combat missiles (some must be considered as en par with top Western models), fighters that were top at the time they were released (often designed to especially counter a given Western fighter, and exceeding it specifications). I would not take their artillery and submarines as light challenges either. and then there is the field of handguns and rifles - here they also produce some outstanding pieces, professional soldiers admit.

Things like C&C, logistics, recce, doctrine for agility and mobility are something different. My unqualified impression is that here they still have deficits, and the way they handle their recruits and the army alltogether is far from being motivating, I think. Here they got stuck in the far away past, it seems.

One electrical short or software glitch and it's good by fighter, hello burning scrapheap!

Running on windows 95? No Way! XP at least, NT 4.0 at worse, or if they wish to come over to the dark side, Mac OS X:D

Nah Ruskies use Linux.:yep:

Dude, bad example. T-72 is a deathtrap. Auto-loader that is happy to load the gunner, and a round penetrating the crew compartment is very likely to set of ammo in the carousel feeding the loader, since it is completely exposed. It's an impresive piece of hardware for sure, but like much of the stuff the Russians build in those days, it's just as dangerous to it's crew as it is to opposing forces.

But I'll agree on the Sukhoi; did some flying against Mig-29's and Su-27's in Lockon. Boy, were those guys dangerous. The Mig needs to get relatively close, but if it does you bether high tail it out of there, or it will turn right on your tail and blast you away with some excellent IR missile. And the Sukhoi, with it's improved standoff capabilities? Don't even get me started...

Well, I just repeat what tankers have told about it. What you say is true, and can be said about the BMP1 and other vehicles as well, nevertheless the cannon and ammunii0on of the T-72 was stronger than the Leopard's 1, and it'S armoiur was a biug challkenge to penetrate for a Leopard-1, and the small silhouette made it a more difficult target, even more so since the T-72 may have been slow in reverse, but was agile enough in forward to make it a relatively mobile threat. The T-72 may not be a match for a competently commanded M1 or Leo-2, but back then, in the times of M60s and Leo1, it was more than an adequate counter to the Western tanks. And the soviet doctrine calculated with a negative loss ration for it'S forces - and breaking through a battleline and win the fight nevertheless. Acceptable for the USSR, but a pity for the indoviodual crew.

but since when do individual fates count in times of war? They do not - that is part of the evil of war. the Soviets could afford high losses. western nations today, on the other hand, with their hightech systems available in limited quantities and their dependency of policies from the public opinion at home, cannot, at least not to the same degree.

Complete myth...or at very best a fairy story told to help troopers in the Berlin Brigade sleep a little better.

Don't get me wrong, like I said it's a very impresive piece of hardware. The auto-loader, even if dangerous if the gunner gets his sleave caught by it, allowed for a lower profile and lowered overall weight (by requiring less armour since there is 1 less crewman), increasing mobility. And the munitions going of is really only a concern if the tank gets flanked. The armour at the front would certainly keep any incoming rounds clear of that storage. If a crew utilizes the mobility of the tank, the risk of a hit on such a critical spot can be minimized.

Bit off-topic: And yes, "war is not nice". In war, victory comes at a loss. A loss of men and equipment. I find it very hard to draw the line when it comes to loss of life, but what it always boils down to for me is that equipment can be replaced, but a life is lost forever. Even with a large pool of bodies to draw from, like Rusia, I think survivability should come first. But ofcourse, maintaining such a "noble" standpoint is very difficult, if not impossible, in times of war.

A heck, I better shut up about this. I've never known the horrors of war, so I guess I'm not really in a position to argue about the ethics of such a thing.

I'll admit it is difficult to find sources backing it up, but dismissing it that easy? May I ask why you believe that?