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

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

  • matchphoenix
    113•1 year ago

    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.

    • Chariotwheel
      62•1 year ago

      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.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺
        28•1 year ago

        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.

      • rayyyy
        21•1 year ago

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

    • BlinkerFluid
      22•1 year ago

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

    • Blue and Orange
      7•1 year ago

      Did we? I think most people have known for quite some time now that China is significantly more capable than Russia.

    • @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      3•1 year ago

      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.

      • Chariotwheel
        9•1 year 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.

    • @TechnicalCreative@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      -4•1 year ago

      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.

      • coffeetest
        37•1 year ago

        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.

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺
          11•1 year ago

          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.

      • @Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        15•1 year ago

        Well they don’t seem to be that strong to me.

        Tfw your defensive line gets breached 530 days into your 3 day offensive.

  • @Hubi@feddit.de
    54•1 year ago

    That video is absolutely wild, the headline is actually overselling this POS. It looks like the turret is about to fall off.

  • @kaput@jlai.lu
    12•1 year ago

    What make gun ‘naval’? Apart from the obvious mounted on a boat part. Any design or ballistic issues warranting the naval designation?

  • @Etterra@lemmy.world
    10•1 year ago

    So wait. If it’s so inaccurate that the only thing it can even hit is the ground, and that’s only because of gravity, then how is it only “nearly” useless?

  • Rentlar
    9•1 year ago

    That video is hilarious. The turret and barrel look like this after firing:

    flinging doorstop

  • @CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6•1 year ago

    Is that a paralax sight? its not even got any kind of targeting assistance its just one guy on a shaking innacurate gun trying to shoot down aircraft by eyeballing it.