I am a grad student studying foreign policy, and one of my classmates is a 37-year-old Russian man who served in the Soviet military from 1989-91 as a tank gunner. I asked him some questions about his experiences, and would like to share them here. His name is Valeriy.
Valeriy first started out with the T-64 tank. The tank has a reputation for unreliability, and he confirmed this. He said the T-64 was terrible and was constantly breaking down, especially the track/suspension system. He said that a typical live-fire drill would consist of three tanks lining up and firing at targets in sequence. There were actually a couple times when all three tanks would experience malfunctions at this point and none would be able to fire.
Valeriy later upgraded to either a T-72 or T-80 (I think he might have been unsure about what the designation in English was). Whatever it was, his did not have the turbine engine and instead had an underpowered diesel engine. He said this was a major problem because the tank couldn't move through difficult terrain fast enough (I imagine this would be very disconcerting in combat) and he could tell the vehicle really strained to clear steep hills. Valeriy said this new tank was better than the T-64, but it still had problems.
He actually did not complain about the safety of the autoloader but said that it was possible to smash your hand accidentally if it got between the stabilized cannon and the ceiling of the turret. He believes that the "dangerous to user" nature of most Soviet/Russian equipment developed because the Soviet leadership was able to cover up friendly casualties by controlling the press, so no one would ever find out if some weapon was really bad, making it worth it to field something with a lot of problems. Valeriy believes this weapons design tradition unfortunately continues today.
Valeriy confirmed that there was a lot of abuse within the Soviet military, and he compared it to how gangs developed in prison. He said that the Caucuses recruits were always very quick to take control of units at the unofficial social level while the Russian commanders would of course be in official control. The unit commanders rarely challenged the gang leaders of the units and instead worked with them. He says that the violent, harsh lives of the Caucuses peoples probably gave them an advantage in barracks situations over Russians because the latter had more rule-laden and orderly upbringings. Abuse within the Soviet military typically meant that the gang leaders in each unit, even at the squad level, would make the new guys do chores for them and give them their salaries. Noncompliance triggered beatings.
Valeriy kept close track of the Georgian War and said that the Russian tanks used in the operation were mostly of Cold War vintage and looked the same as when he had been in the military.
I'll post more info. as I get it--I intend on speaking with him more about his military experiences.
Valeriy first started out with the T-64 tank. The tank has a reputation for unreliability, and he confirmed this. He said the T-64 was terrible and was constantly breaking down, especially the track/suspension system. He said that a typical live-fire drill would consist of three tanks lining up and firing at targets in sequence. There were actually a couple times when all three tanks would experience malfunctions at this point and none would be able to fire.
Valeriy later upgraded to either a T-72 or T-80 (I think he might have been unsure about what the designation in English was). Whatever it was, his did not have the turbine engine and instead had an underpowered diesel engine. He said this was a major problem because the tank couldn't move through difficult terrain fast enough (I imagine this would be very disconcerting in combat) and he could tell the vehicle really strained to clear steep hills. Valeriy said this new tank was better than the T-64, but it still had problems.
He actually did not complain about the safety of the autoloader but said that it was possible to smash your hand accidentally if it got between the stabilized cannon and the ceiling of the turret. He believes that the "dangerous to user" nature of most Soviet/Russian equipment developed because the Soviet leadership was able to cover up friendly casualties by controlling the press, so no one would ever find out if some weapon was really bad, making it worth it to field something with a lot of problems. Valeriy believes this weapons design tradition unfortunately continues today.
Valeriy confirmed that there was a lot of abuse within the Soviet military, and he compared it to how gangs developed in prison. He said that the Caucuses recruits were always very quick to take control of units at the unofficial social level while the Russian commanders would of course be in official control. The unit commanders rarely challenged the gang leaders of the units and instead worked with them. He says that the violent, harsh lives of the Caucuses peoples probably gave them an advantage in barracks situations over Russians because the latter had more rule-laden and orderly upbringings. Abuse within the Soviet military typically meant that the gang leaders in each unit, even at the squad level, would make the new guys do chores for them and give them their salaries. Noncompliance triggered beatings.
Valeriy kept close track of the Georgian War and said that the Russian tanks used in the operation were mostly of Cold War vintage and looked the same as when he had been in the military.
I'll post more info. as I get it--I intend on speaking with him more about his military experiences.
Comment