the russians don't have decked out tanks...and that's where we run into issues. The russian army--and more importantly, the countries it exports to (because we all know they don't actually build or design competitive stuff, but rather, they design products to be paper champions...they're made to be sold "as good as" or "better than the western versions"), are in quite the perdicament. They compete on paper, but anyone who's seend the inside of a Mig 29 vs a F16 understands just how superficial these competions are...
Russian equipment is "designed" like their rockets....I.E. they're supposed to be more rugged (read: most of the time, heavy) and more powerful (read: it has to be, because they build heavier stuff, and lack the knowledge, capacity, and manufacturing capability to use modern materials). How does that translate?
It translate to: every russian aircraft that was ever made. They're needlessly heavy, in avionics, weapons, and engines, as well as in powerplant technology, which refers tk energy prodution, storage, and use. In the end, soviet and russian weapons are built in the same manner a 2 year old might design an animal, if asked to produce the best animal for meat production:
"I'll have the breasts, and legs of a chicken...the ribs of a cow...the tail of a kangaroo, because hey, lets face it, they're cool." The result is an aircraft that is big because it has big engines. It needs big engines because the avionics are heavy. It needs big avionics because of inefficiency and lazinees. And because it's all really big, they....oh yeah, they need one giant fucking fuel tank. In the end, the thing lights up like an atomic bomb on every radar in the same hemisphere, and it maneuvers with it's weapons and fuel the same way a pregnant cow approaches hopping a fence.
But back to the problem..the problem is that they have to build shit the way they do because it subsidizes the russian army. The countries that russia exports to consist of: people who shit in holes. They couldn't tie their own shoe laces if given a 6 month course. In the end, this means that during a conflict, because the russian government and the governments of russia's friends don't exactly inspire loyalty, it's best not to put a lot of weight on the shoulders of say...a technically inclined loader, who needs a ttoooonnnn of practice (which they cant afford), training, and investment. So what would you do? You wouldnt design the best equipment for the people; who you cant count on. People are an expendable resource in conflict; instead, you design a piece of equipment that can stand on it's own, and then send one or two mechanics to take care of it.
So...in the end, the soldiers that use the equipment never need a single degree of technical aptitude. Idiots without technical skill, and who can be sent to pull a trigger where they're told, are generally in abundace during wartime. But the fact remains, that this is a vicious, never ending cycle. You have unskilled armies with deadly, but often inferior weaponry, and because you have an unskilled and inferior force, people aren't exactly looking to sign up as a career move, and likewise, no sane leader would equip such an army with say, a billion dollar aircraft.
So, in the end, you have autoloaders. Autoloaders are both the symptom, and the problem.
This started with talk of why the Iraqi T-72s fought so poorly against the U.S, and this fool pretty much insulted the entire Russian MIC that's why i post this here.
Wanna hear what you guys think.