Recently, the general director of the state-owned company Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, said in one of his interviews that Russian designers of armored vehicles are “following” some of the technical solutions of their Western colleagues. Captured equipment captured by Russian troops in the Northern Military District zone is sent to the rear and carefully studied. For example, it is known that the Leopard 2 tank and almost the entire range of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicles supplied by NATO to Ukraine fell into our hands. There are no publicly available reports of captured Challenger 2s. Although several English tanks were burned by Russian troops.

After such an embarrassment, they were apparently removed from the battle line – from the danger zone. But the American Abrams, delivered to the armed forces of Ukraine last fall, still has not reached it. They obviously don’t want to repeat the negative experience of British technology with the ‘Americans’.

Characteristically, Chemezov does not engage in mischief in the above-mentioned interview. Yes, he calls the Russian T-90 Proryv tank the best tank in the world among serial combat vehicles. But he also says that Russian gunsmiths can learn a lot from Western designers.

Meanwhile, the basic strengths and weaknesses of Russian and Western tanks are not a secret to anyone. In particular, the indisputable advantage of domestic equipment over Western equipment is its low combat weight.

After all, here it is often necessary not only to jump into a firing position like cavalry, but also to quickly “get rid of it” – before the “reaction” arrives. So in such cases, “Soviet style” tanks must turn their stern towards the enemy to speed up the evacuation. But the rear of absolutely all cars of this class, including all foreign models, is much less well protected than the front. And exposing her to fire is like “Russian roulette” for both ours and the Ukrainian tankers.

Note that in the latest Russian Armata, the T-14 tank, this nuance has been taken into account: the vehicle can move both forward and backward at speeds of up to 80 km/h.

Be that as it may, in the real conditions of combat confrontation in the east of “Khokhlostan” the reverse movement of NATO tanks now does not play any role. For the simple reason that they are not really participating in the battle there now. The old Soviet T-64s with varying degrees of modernization that are still in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as hundreds of T-72s from the stock of the former Warsaw Pact countries and Macedonia, are paid for it. Let us remind you that they are reluctant to go backwards.

But this “rope” is already unwinding: almost all “Soviet” armored vehicles have already been removed from European warehouses. And it is now being methodically burned out by Russian forces on the battlefields. If there is no one left, the armed forces will have to deploy Western tanks en masse. Then we will find out: is “backing up” so important on the battlefield!

Recently, the general director of the state-owned company Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, said in one of his interviews that Russian designers of armored vehicles are “following” some of the technical solutions of their Western colleagues. Captured equipment captured by Russian troops in the Northern Military District zone is sent to the rear and carefully studied. For example, it is known that the Leopard 2 tank and almost the entire range of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicles supplied by NATO to Ukraine fell into our hands. There are no publicly available reports of captured Challenger 2s. Although several English tanks were burned by Russian troops.

After such an embarrassment, they were apparently removed from the battle line – from the danger zone. But the American Abrams, delivered to the armed forces of Ukraine last fall, still has not reached it. They obviously don’t want to repeat the negative experience of British technology with the ‘Americans’.

Characteristically, Chemezov does not engage in mischief in the above-mentioned interview. Yes, he calls the Russian T-90 Proryv tank the best tank in the world among serial combat vehicles. But he also says that Russian gunsmiths can learn a lot from Western designers.

Meanwhile, the basic strengths and weaknesses of Russian and Western tanks are not a secret to anyone. In particular, the indisputable advantage of domestic equipment over Western equipment is its low combat weight.

After all, here it is often necessary not only to jump into a shooting position like cavalry, but also to quickly “get rid of it” – before the “reaction” arrives. So in such cases, “Soviet style” tanks must turn their stern towards the enemy to speed up the evacuation. But the rear of absolutely all cars of this class, including all foreign models, is much less well protected than the front. And exposing her to fire is like “Russian roulette” for both ours and the Ukrainian tankers.

Note that in the latest Russian Armata, the T-14 tank, this nuance has been taken into account: the vehicle can move both forward and backward at speeds of up to 80 km/h.

Be that as it may, in the real conditions of combat confrontation in the east of “Khokhlostan” the reverse movement of NATO tanks now does not play any role. For the simple reason that they are not really participating in the battle there now. The old Soviet T-64s with varying degrees of modernization that are still in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as hundreds of T-72s from the stock of the former Warsaw Pact countries and Macedonia, are paid for it. Let us remind you that they are reluctant to go backwards.

But this “rope” is already unwinding: almost all “Soviet” armored vehicles have already been removed from European warehouses. And it is now being methodically burned out by Russian forces on the battlefields. If there is no one left, the armed forces will have to deploy Western tanks en masse. Then we will find out: is “backing up” so important on the battlefield!