Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Why the Russian Army T-72 Tank is Worse Than You Think" video.
-
02:11 Wow!!
03:30 What about IDF tanks during Yom Kippur War in 1973?
04:16 Great point, ignored by tacticool folks, gamer wannabee warlords, Stalin would approve.
05:18 Capitalism works, competition is more important than mere economy of scale.
09:17 When it comes to fighting against near peers, in a total war, chances are it's going to be based on universal conscription. In a total war, in real time, they're not going to be well-trained. Neither U.S. nor the Soviets had well-trained tank crew overall, certainly not as good as the Germans. Just take a look at Kasserine pass, U.S. tank crews, both the conscripts, and the veteran officers performed abysmally compared to the battle hardened, ultra well trained Germans.
However, as the war progresses, two things are bound to happen: once the greenhorns, if they survive long enough will become seasoned veterans, and the initially well-trained crew will become disabled/killed and their numbers will dwindle to nothing.
The Takeaway, eventually sooner or later, the conscripts will be either winning or losing the war, not the initially well-trained pros or semi-pros. The same process happened to once very well regarded IJA Kwantung Army, once a battle hardened, ultra well trained, if generally based on light infantry doctrine were regarded with fear and respect by the Soviets, even after Khalkin Gol, till early 40s, but by 1945, through attrition, Kwantung Army started relying on 3rd tier troop, not even 2nd tier, and diluted training by more than 50 to 70%, had had generally poor quality troops. Btw. the same had happened to USMC. The pinnacle of the USMC quality at the rank and file in the field happened in 20s, during the height of 'Banana Wars', on the other hand, by the end of WW2, the quality had hit rock bottom in the entire USMC history! They lowered both physical and mental standard by a considerable margin, cut the training by about 70% eventually.
So there the troop quality is not that important in winning a total war against near peer, but the numbers are. The thing to keep in mind is the total effective projective force, and as far as the rank and file troops are concerned are combination of troop quality, and quantity.
As far as the 'morale' is concerned, again, it's not that important, not as important as many people want to believe.
Just look at how G.I. behaved after the liberation of Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France
https://onlybooks.org/american-crimes-and-the-liberation-of-paris-robbery-rape-and-murder-by-renegade-gis-1944-1947
So much for the morale.
Both U.S. and the Soviets won WW2 based on less dumb grand strategy, far superior logistics, and competent, if not superior operational strategy, not based on tactical proficiency of the rank and file.
Military's priority should be winning against near peer, not asymmetric warfare. The priority doctrine should be always winning against near peer, using conscript army, not winning a quick, easy, cheap, asymmetric warfare against a weak opponent.
Winning against a weak opponent brings false confidence, when pitted against near peers. The wars that will really count will be always based on conscription army, barring the nuclear war.
What about T-80, and T-14? How have they performed? Me thinks the Russians would rush in T-14 to test their APS in real combat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1