Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[ZORAVAR]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Originally posted by Armenian

Zoravar jan, with all due respects, I believe there are a few flaws in your reasoning... in my humble opinion

1) Basing a nation's military doctrine solely on "defense" is dangerous and self-defeating. While a nation's war doctrine can be a defensive one its military has to be able to perform offensive duties as well.

2) Main battle tanks, as good as they are in the offensive, are just as good - if not better - than their thin-skinned counterparts in the defensive.

3) A military has to have readily available assets on the field of battle to perform regional/spot counterattacks for tactical and/or strategic reasons.

4) If a main battle tanks can do both defense and offense, why waste money on light tanks, especially since you are going to need main battle tanks anyway?

Of course we should have offensive means and readiness to attack. No disagreements there. I was discussing about our defenses in case we are being attacked, while you are talking about the bigger picture of the entire military capabilities.

Yes, heavier armour is better in case you are on the attack. It is also desirable for defensive purposes as well. But heavy vehicles come with a package: they are more expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more fuel thirsty, more cumbersome and difficult to move around, less versatile etc. etc.
In many cases a lightly armoured vehicle like an APC (that can protect the crew from small arms fire and shrapnel) is good enough.

We all want the best for our soldiers, but we have to be realistic. Even the US military with a budget of over $500 billion uses lightly armoured vehicles.

Putting aside western propaganda and exaggerations, we can't escape the fact that 'all' the Cold War era main battle tanks of the Soviet Union have proven to be highly volatile when hit. Putting aside older western models such as the M-60, try and compare the late Cold War era Soviet one's to the late Cold War era Israeli Merkava and the American M-1 Abrams (both early 1980s models). In the 2006 Lebanon war Israel lost many (perhaps several dozen) main battle tanks against the Hizbollah. However, of the Israeli tanks that were hit relatively a few seemed to have been total losses. The rest of the tanks were simply removed from the battlefield, repaired and eventually returned to service. Relatively speaking, taking into consideration of the number of tanks hit, survival rate for Israeli tank crewmen was good. There are some pictures of knocked out Israeli tanks from that war, look at them closely and then compare that picture to what we saw in the streets of Tskhinvali. Do you think any of the Georgian crewmen operating their modified T-72s had a chance against a direct hit? Have you realized that Georgia has performed several mass burials of "unidentified soldiers"? Those unidentified soldiers were most probably the chared remains of Georgian tank crewmen sent into South Ossetia.

In short, western tanks do excel in crew survivability. Of course this is all relative. A large enough warhead placed in the right location can turn any tank into a charred carcass in mere seconds. But, in general, the western military establishment has placed the importance of crew survivability much higher than their Soviet counterparts. This is no secret. I hope that this particular aspect of Moscow's military doctrine is changing. From what I have noticed in the newer Russian designs it may very well be. Perhaps you can shed more light on this.

People do always this same mistake.
The T-72 was designed during the 60's and entered service in early 70's. They are not the contemporary of Merkava or M-1, they should be compared to the later models of the M-60. The T-90 is better protected than the T-72.

Yes, the newer western tanks put more emphasis on crew survibability (that is why they weigh in excess of 60 tons). The Soviet/Russian doctrine is to have smaller tanks that present more difficult targets. Plus autoloading gun that reduces the crew to 3 (instead of 4 on western tanks).

In the Russian army, the lightweight SPRUT-SD I was talking about is intended for the airborne troops and marines. It is airdropable, fully amphibious and extremely maneuvrable. It is not exactly a tank, it is more like an anti-tank gun for defensive purposes and a fire support vehicle (like artillery) for offensive purposes. Of course, we are not going to airdrop it anywhere, but it will do well in in the context of Artsakh's defenses. For advancing deep inside Azeri territory, I would prefer the T-72s.

[ZORAVAR]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Israel and Azerbaijan close multi-million dollar arms deal

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent


Israel and Azerbaijan have closed a weapons deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

According to agreements signed by the Defense Ministry and the government of Azerbaijan, which borders on Iran, Israel will sell the southern Caucasus state ammunition, mortars and radio equipment.

Predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan has increasingly been caught in a tug-of-war for influence between its large southern neighbor, and the secular, democratic West.

Rumblings of Shi'ite political Islam have been particularly noticeable in the more conservative regions that border Iran, and the secular government has displayed concern over Iranian influence.

An number of Israeli firms were involved in the various deal. Soltam will sell mortars and ammunition to Azerbaijan, Israel Military Industries will sell the country rocket artillery and Tadiran Communications will sell it radio equipment.

Israeli companies have also recently signed deals worth tens of millions of dollars with Kazakhstan, a neighbor of Azerbaijan's.

Minister of National Infrastructures and former defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer has visited Azerbaijan in the past, and has said that the country can serve as a source of oil and gas for Israel.

Foreign news outlets have reported that the two countries maintain intelligence and security contacts. The bolstering of these ties has reportedly been achieved by former Mossad agent Michael Ross. The Canadian-born Ross describes Iranian intelligence operations in Azerbaijan in a book he published last year.

Azeri President Ilham Aliyev has met with Israeli leaders at various international forums as well as at Baku, his nation's capital. He has voiced the desire for closer relations with Israel and has also spoken of threats that both countries face from Iran.

Source : http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024798.html

[Armanen]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Thanks for the responses Zoravar and everyone else.

And as they say, the best defense is a good offense.

[Armenian]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

I was discussing about our defenses in case we are being attacked, while you are talking about the bigger picture of the entire military capabilities...

Zoravar, I agree but I was merely making the point that investing in light tanks is a waste of money for Armenia.

People do always this same mistake. The T-72 was designed during the 60's and entered service in early 70's. They are not the contemporary of Merkava or M-1, they should be compared to the later models of the M-60. The T-90 is better protected than the T-72.

It's not a matter of mistake. I know that the design of the T-72 was from the 1960s. However, for a long time, while the Soviets comfortably relied on their large numbers of mass produced T-72 tanks for success on the battlefield, the West relied on better armor design, better fire control systems and better crew protection. By the time the German Leopard II, the American Abrams M-1 and the Israeli Merkava appeared on the scene in the early 1980s the Soviets had absolutely nothing in their tank arsenal to compare with them. There was a huge qualitative gap between Soviet armor and western armor for a long time. So, in a sense, the T-72s and its western counterparts were contemporaries for they served their respective nations during the same time period. This situation continued for well over ten years, when the T-90s slowly began to make an appearance, somewhat lessening the gap but not yet fully closing it.

In the Russian army, the lightweight SPRUT-SD I was talking about is intended for the airborne troops and marines. It is airdropable, fully amphibious and extremely maneuvrable.

Exactly, light tanks serve a special purpose, they fit a tight, specialized, niche. Armenia does not require air dropped tanks, nor does Armenia have conventional airborne forces. The specific defense role you envision light tanks with "thin armor and heavy firepower" playing in Armenia's army can be fully performed not only by its main battle tanks - but also by its self-propelled artillery. In short, I agree with everything else you have written. I'm only arguing your point that Armenia should look into purchasing light weight tanks instead of main battle tanks. Under current conditions, I believe spending money on light tanks would be a waste of money for Armenia and it would undermine the military's capabilities.

[ZORAVAR]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

It's not a matter of mistake. I know that the design of the T-72 was from the 1960s. However, for a long time, while the Soviets comfortably relied on their large numbers of mass produced T-72 tanks for success on the battlefield, the West relied on better armor design, better fire control systems and better crew protection. By the time the German Leopard II, the American Abrams M-1 and the Israeli Merkava appeared on the scene in the early 1980s the Soviets had absolutely nothing in their tank arsenal to compare with them. There was a huge qualitative gap between Soviet armor and western armor for a long time. So, in a sense, the T-72s and its western counterparts were contemporaries for they served their respective nations during the same time period. This situation continued for well over ten years, when the T-90s slowly began to make an appearance, somewhat lessening the gap but not yet fully closing it.

I have heard these same one-sided arguments a gazillion times...Some of the counter-arguments are:

T-72 was not alone. It was concurrently produced with the T-64 in a low-high mix. Yes, the Soviets had two tanks. T-80 came later on and T-90 is the current model. A new tank (T-95) is coming soon.
T-72 tanks exported to other countries (Iraq, Syria etc.) were simplified versions with lesser protection, inferior ammunition etc. They were called "monkey models".
The T-72 can cross rivers (fording or submerged) while most Western super-tanks can't.
The T-72 can cross many swamps, bridges and obstacles that some western tanks will not even attempt.
The T-72 main gun fires guided missiles up to 5 km while the western uber-tanks don't have such weaponry and their gun is good for max 3-4 km. These missiles were never made available to Iraq and other client states. Check out this site: http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/bron/tank/redut.htm
The T-72 has an autoloader and needs only 3 crew members. The western wonder-machines need a human loader (4 crewmembers).
The T-72 is designed to operate in NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) war. Many western tanks are not.
etc.etc.etc.
I can go on and on...but please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that the T-72 is superior to an M-1 or Merkava. It will perform better in certain situation, in others it will not.

And by the way, many tanks experts place the T-90 right among the latest tanks the west has.

Anyways, the bottom line is that there is no such thing as "the absolute best tank". Such contests are good for Discovery channel shows that are purely for entertainment and propaganda purposes.

For the light tank argument: Many armies in the world are acquiring or considering them mostly because the main battle tank progressed from a typical 25 tons during WWII to over 60 tons nowadays. They have become prohibitively expensive ($5+ million apiece).
Some say that the anti-tank missiles are going to cause the extinction of the tank, others say that all the added-on gizmos and protection are making them so complicated and unaffordable that eventually they will be phased out.
I am not so pessimistic about the tank. I think it still has a role to play on the future battlefield. I also believe that the light tank is making a comeback.

[Armenian]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

I have heard these same one-sided arguments a gazillion times...

Perhaps because there is validity to the argument??? Despite its ability to ford rivers, the mainstay of the Soviet tanks forces T-72/64 were at a great disadvantage in crew protection and fire control when compared to their western counterparts for well over a decade. Anyway, we are going around and around in circles here. Let's just agree to disagree. Regarding light tanks: I will stand by my premise; we can't waste money on them when we have readily available, cheep, durable and capable battlewagons like the T-72.

However, your reply brought up an interesting issue. It is well known that Soviet arms supplied to Arab armies were substandard. That, coupled with substandard soldiers like Arabs, proved to be catastrophic for the foes of Israel in the Middle East. In your opinion, why was this done? This approach by the Kremlin actually hurt their regional allies. It was bad advertisement for Soviet arms. It made a major nation like Egypt move away from purchasing Soviet arms. I have some suspicions regarding this matter, but I want to know your opinion. Why do you think the Kremlin allowed this to happen?

[ZORAVAR]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

However, your reply brought up an interesting issue. It is well known that Soviet arms supplied to Arab armies were substandard. That, coupled with substandard soldiers like Arabs, proved to be catastrophic for the foes of Israel in the Middle East. In your opinion, why was this done?

I'll start with a couple of extreme examples:

After the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Egypt and Syria were begging the Soviets for Mig-23 fighter jets. They got their wish in 1974 when they received "monkey model" Mig-23 Export models. These had a simpler engine with less power and the radar was that of the Mig-21!!! In many ways, the older Mig-21 was a better fighter than the export Mig-23. Yet, the Arab airforces had great difficulty in mastering this new airplane...it took them years and a number of crashes.

Another example is the few tank duels between US M1 tanks and Iraqi T-72 during the 1991 war. The Americans loud the superiority of their tank and the ability to withstand direct hits from the Iraqi tanks... No wonder, the Iraqis were using monkey model tanks with simpler armour and were not using anti-tank sabot rounds... Their high explosive fragmention shells were of no use against armour!!!

Why did the Soviets do that? There is a mixed bag of reasons:

- Iraq, Syria, Egypt and even oil rich Libya were bad clients. They ended up with tens of billions of dollars in debt to the Soviet Union by the time it collapsed. They never paid for a lot of the arms they received. Why should the Russians keep on giving them the best when they are being scr**ed every time?

- Military secrecy: The Soviets were reluctant to export sensitive technology. Traditionally, the Russians rarely exported the latest and the best. They made a weapon available to clients only if the newer model or version became available for themselves. A typical example is the Mig-21 fighter: they offered an older version to clients only when a newer and better iteration was entering service into the Soviet airforce. The Russians are more open now, but sometimes they use their old habits with certain weapons: e.g. Export versions of their S-300 SAM missiles are available to anyone who comes up with the cash, while themselves they are deploying the newer S-400. They also said they will make the S-400 available for export from 2011 (when they start getting the S-500).

- Some of the weapons had to be simplified version because the end-users were unqualified to use the complex technology.

I know a few ex-military people in Armenia who were sent to Arab countries (during Soviet times) as military advisors. They tell me horror stories about some of the Arab armies.
BTW, the Russians call "Arab" to any lazy person who wants to do something the easy way.

In their defense, I must say that in a few rare cases, the Arabs did quite well against the Israelis.

It was bad advertisement for Soviet arms.

Indeed it was.

But there were also a few instances where Soviet weapons received positive advertisement:
- The SA-6 anti-aircraft missile during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Despite the fact that it was the simplified KVADRAT export (monkey) model rather than the full-spec KUB version.

- The TERMIT (SSN-2 STYX) antiship missile that sank the Israeli Eilath destroyer right after the humiliating 1967 war. That was the first ever ship sank by an anti-ship missile.

- The MALYUTKA (AT-3 SAGGER) anti-tank missile had a brilliant performance against Israeli armour in 1973.

It made a major nation like Egypt move away from purchasing Soviet arms. I have some suspicions regarding this matter, but I want to know your opinion. Why do you think the Kremlin allowed this to happen?

The Egyptians were not "purchasing" weapons from the Soviet Union, they were just getting them without paying...
Sadat switched sides. In 1970 it was clear that he wanted to distance Egypt away from the Soviets and move into the US hands. Weapons performance is just one of the excuses he was using. In my opinion the Kremlin did a mistake in still supporting him up to right after the 1973 war.

[Armenian]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

But there were also a few instances where Soviet weapons received positive advertisement:

- The SA-6 anti-aircraft missile during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Despite the fact that it was the simplified KVADRAT export (monkey) model rather than the full-spec KUB version.

- The TERMIT (SSN-2 STYX) antiship missile that sank the Israeli Eilath destroyer right after the humiliating 1967 war. That was the first ever ship sank by an anti-ship missile.

- The MALYUTKA (AT-3 SAGGER) anti-tank missile had a brilliant performance against Israeli armour in 1973.

You forgot the mention the ZSU-23 Shilka, which I believe was credited with actually knocking down most (or a large percentage) of the 100+ military aircrafts Israel lost during the war.

The Egyptians were not "purchasing" weapons from the Soviet Union, they were just getting them without paying...

I was not aware of that. In a sense, nothing has changed because they still aren't "purchasing" weapons. Don't they get over two billion dollars in US aid every year... just for keeping the peace with the Zionist State.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you again for being here. I really value these types of conversions. And until you arrived there was no one I could approach with these types of questions.

On a side note, what do you think? It's my favorite -

German Kampfpanzer Leopard 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abqb_DqYXno

Leopard 2 Tank Documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVXZS6oEhg

Leopard-II Main Battle Tank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMa9M...eature=related

[ZORAVAR]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Yes, the SHILKA is another weapon system that did very well in Arab hands at that time.

The Leo-2 is a great tank. it is a product coming from a long line of German expertise and heritage in the field of armored vehicles. A bit overengineered and overbuilt (hence a bit pricey) but they are worth every penny.

[Snoopy12]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

hey guys...i'm new at this site! but i have pretty good idea about militaries...particullarly our military! i just have a question to Zoravar! I read ue posts and analyses...i agree with most! i just want to know the following:

does Armenia have its own S-300s? I know there are 4 Russian S-300V battaries in Armenia...Does Armenia posses any S-300s beside those 4 battaries? And are these batteries under Russian or Armenian control?