"Interesting machines, high level": Russia appreciates Western tanks captured in the SVO zone

111 430 23

The head of the state corporation Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, gave a detailed interview to the magazine Razvedchik, in which he commented on the tactical and technical characteristics of Western armored vehicles used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. His assessments ranged from recognition of their technological advances to outright criticism and skepticism regarding the real combat capabilities of foreign vehicles.

Chemezov noted the high level of performance of the German Leopard 2 tank, but emphasized that Rostec specialists did not find any fundamentally new solutions in it that were worthy of borrowing.



The Leopard tank is made at a high level: modern components, a fire control system, a powerful engine, albeit with strange temperature restrictions. But we did not see any breakthrough design solutions, that is, we have nothing to take from the Leopard and apply to ourselves

– explained the head of the corporation.

The American M1A1 Abrams has also attracted the interest of Russian specialists, but, according to Chemezov, this vehicle also does not contain technological solutions worthy of adaptation in the Russian military-industrial complex.

Our specialists also looked at the American Abrams - overall it's an interesting vehicle, although there's nothing to take from it either

- he said.

The British Challenger 2 received the harshest assessment. Chemezov called it a "saucepan", effectively calling into question its suitability for modern combat conditions.

I would also like to take a look at the British Challenger, mostly out of curiosity. It is clear in advance that this is a "saucepan" not very suitable for real combat

- he added.

The head of Rostec also focused on the American M2 Bradley IFV, criticizing the excessive enthusiasm with which some experts evaluate it. According to Chemezov, despite certain advantages, this vehicle is vulnerable in the conditions of the Ukrainian theater of military operations.

Some experts, including ours, praise the Bradley. In my opinion, this is unjustified enthusiasm. It has advantages in terms of protection and convenience of the troop compartment. However, this does not prevent our weapons from destroying the American IFV along with the crew and troops.

- he said.

Chemezov named the Bradley's low cross-country ability and inability to overcome water obstacles as its main drawbacks, which, according to him, negates any attempts to strengthen protection.

The Bradley has a serious weak point: problems with cross-country ability. They get stuck in the black soil and become an easy target. So what's the point of improved protection if the result is the same? Almost all the Bradleys delivered to Ukraine have been destroyed today

- he noted.

In his opinion, the IFV should be primarily mobile, passable and amphibious, as is implemented in Russian models. American models, according to him, do not meet these requirements.
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. twice-born
    twice-born
    +14
    10 June 2025 20: 45
    And how many of our poorly protected "cardboard" BMPs and BMDs overcome water obstacles on the outskirts? Maybe it would be better to strengthen the protection of people in defiance of water navigation? And from landing ships, where would we land on them, something is not even foreseen!
    And I would be very surprised if Chemezov publicly declared that we have something to take from enemy tanks!
    And I would like to know in more detail what is so bad about the Naglovsky Challenger and what he means by "saucepan". And in general, in more detail the assessments of all the mentioned fascist tanks.
    1. Koronik
      Koronik
      -3
      11 June 2025 03: 46
      And I would like to know in more detail what is so bad about Naglovsky's Challenger and what he means by "pot"

      What are the problems, the SVO has not yet ended, volunteer for the front, and all the questions in visual action.
      1. twice-born
        twice-born
        +2
        11 June 2025 13: 14
        Well, you are clearly writing from the trenches and know the answers to all these questions!
        Or maybe I should become a high-ranking official, or a minister of industry, or a famous journalist, and meet Chemezov and ask him what he meant?!
    2. helilelik
      helilelik
      -1
      11 June 2025 11: 44
      There's a lot you can take there if you're going to fight with tank wedges. There's really nothing to take there for modern warfare.
      1. twice-born
        twice-born
        0
        11 June 2025 13: 55
        Well, here I am for the second time saying, what exactly can be taken from there that is interesting? Everyone mentions it, but no one tells about it in detail!
        1. sannyhome
          sannyhome
          +1
          11 June 2025 18: 46
          Quote: Twice-born
          what exactly can you get from there?

          Quality of parts and assembly. Focus on crew protection. Lots of things.
          1. twice-born
            twice-born
            0
            11 June 2025 19: 01
            I thought you would tell me about the quality of sights, electronics, radio, gun stabilization system, engine, transmission, design and quality of armor in the end, and you gave me some general words about the quality of assembly and crew protection. And how and by how much better is theirs, that's still a question.
            This is how any boy can compare Russian cars with foreign cars, but the essence is not touched upon, and so it is here.
  2. Alex Samoletov
    Alex Samoletov
    +8
    10 June 2025 22: 28
    Again tales about amphibians, in what dimension does Chemezov still live??? Where else besides training was this useful???
  3. Dmitry Volkov
    Dmitry Volkov
    -5
    11 June 2025 06: 07
    Well, at least our infantry fighting vehicles float, you should have remembered about the PT-85, a good idea, the PT-76 showed themselves very well in Vietnam, and enough of the blah-blah that the armor is weak, now the armor on a tank is not the main thing am
  4. nikanikolich
    nikanikolich
    +9
    11 June 2025 09: 10
    I didn't think that a person of such level would talk such nonsense. Let's leave the tanks alone, well, I think it's inappropriate to criticize the "Bradley" for its cross-country ability and its inability to swim, because the main task is to preserve personnel on the march and "Bradley" does this, judging by the reaction of Rostec, the fact that they dig in the black soil is because they can only drive on asphalt in their bast shoes, replace the tracks and that will be a different story.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      -4
      11 June 2025 12: 48
      Change the tracks or not, but the vehicle is just heavy, a lot of armor. It may drive well on highways, but it gets stuck on the ground. In addition, if our weapons can already pierce Abrams-type tanks head-on, and their armor is not like the Bradley's, then what can we talk about? The gun is praised and ours are not bad. An explosion on an anti-tank mine - a landmine, immobilizes everyone - a track break and the possibility of further controlled movement. Well, if the mine is an anti-tank mine, with a cumulative effect, detonated under the bottom with an upward explosion - a shot, everyone inside gets it
      The result is logical. If the shelling is from automatic weapons, then the armor may hold up, but ours can handle it too.
      Speaking of armor. There was a video near Donetsk where our armored personnel carrier with a gun module calmly shot a Bradley that it came across. And in the Kursk region, two of our armored personnel carriers shot a column with three Bradleys and other NATO equipment from an ambush. Only two vehicles escaped the fire, but not Bradleys, but Cossacks - they run fast.
      So if a person says that there is nothing special, then that is true. These machines did not justify themselves in the Ukrainian theater of military operations. The Americans now want to get something new instead of this machine. They announced a competition for the development. By the way, so that it floats too.
      1. nikanikolich
        nikanikolich
        0
        12 June 2025 17: 12
        That is, the T-72 and T-80 with 90s are not heavy, where the latter weighs 46,5 tons, and a 33-ton shack is heavy. I don't see the logic. Although we all perfectly understand what the difference is, the difference in the pressure on the ground, but if we borrow what is needed and make our calculation of the loads on the ground and its distribution, we will get the result. How much we will need it, it is not for me to judge, but for the commander-in-chief and Rostec, apparently
  5. rotkiv04
    rotkiv04
    +10
    11 June 2025 10: 24
    The amphibious characteristics made me laugh especially, I can't remember where this advantage of our equipment was useful in the SVO, Chemezov is of course not an expert, and he is, by the way, a person close to the geostrategist, that's the level of advisers for the chess player, but I would like to hear the opinion of those who directly researched and tested this equipment
  6. sannyhome
    sannyhome
    +3
    11 June 2025 18: 47
    Quote: svoroponov
    if our weapons are already in the front of tanks like Abrams

    To be fair, the tanks supplied are old and without uranium armor.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      -2
      13 June 2025 18: 06
      The tests were conducted to penetrate the Abrams turret, frontally (penetrated from a distance of 6800 meters), including the one brought from Baghdad. The Americans fought in this tank and it was knocked out there. Somehow, maybe it was all of it or maybe just part of it, but ours brought the fragments to Russia for testing. Do you think it was without uranium armor when it took part in military operations? So, the shell that took part in the tests (like a tandem) penetrated the turret frontally and out. And this was before the SVO. I can also say, perhaps you read, that the Americans, having learned about the results, urgently began to try to modernize these tanks with additional armor plates, including in front of the turret. I don’t know the result, but the weight additionally increased by 5-7 tons. It was already heavy, but it became even heavier and lost even more maneuverability. Also, explain to me how these Abrams, even with uranium armor, and it was exactly these that fought in Iraq, were hit by our RPG-7 and PG-7VR grenade launchers in tandem on the side and in the stern? And the uranium armor did not help, they burned well.
      By the way. They often say that our tanks' turrets are torn off when hit. So if the Abrams only has armor-piercing LOMs, then the turret will remain in place when hit by a shell or a cumulative jet when penetrated, but if there are other types of shells, then the turret will be torn off by the explosion, regardless of the blowout hatches. Therefore, American tank crews, going into battle, simply did not load other shells and left only armor-piercing ones or loaded other types, trying to shoot them as quickly as possible at once, some sometimes "into the wrong place",,, in order to somehow protect themselves in the event of a penetration. This is the admission of an American tank commander who fought in Iraq.
      By the way, the ammunition that penetrated the turret during the tests was mastered in production by our guys and was tested quite successfully in the SVO, by the way, it was the Abrams that was hit by it and precisely in the frontal projection of the turret. Our guys from the front announced this about half a year ago. But this is what I know.
  7. Daniel K
    Daniel K
    +5
    11 June 2025 19: 08
    Well, all that's left is to listen to the top managers of AvtoVAZ, that they have absolutely nothing to take from foreign cars. The main thing is amphibiousness 🤷‍♂️
  8. mr parker
    mr parker
    -1
    12 June 2025 11: 43
    Quote: Koronik
    And I would like to know in more detail what is so bad about Naglovsky's Challenger and what he means by "pot". - What are the problems, the SVO has not yet ended, a volunteer for the front, and all the questions in visual action.

    What will this give you in more detail? He said POT.
    1. Outdated chassis and armor design
    - The Challenger 2 uses the chassis of the Challenger 1 (developed in the 1980s), which limits the potential for upgrades.
    - Chobham/Dorchester armor, although effective, is inferior to modern composite solutions (for example, Relikt on the T-90M or NERA on the Abrams).
    - The lack of dynamic protection (like Russian tanks) makes it vulnerable to modern ATGMs.

    2. Poor mobility
    - The Perkins CV12 engine (1200 hp) is weaker than its competitors (1500 hp for the Leopard 2A7, 1500 hp for the Abrams).
    - Lower speed (~59 km/h versus ~70 km/h for Leopard 2).
    - The suspension is hydropneumatic, but less effective than that of German or American tanks.

    3. Obsolete weapons
    - 120mm rifled gun L30A1 (in Challenger 2) instead of smoothbore (as in all modern tanks). This limits the choice of ammunition and the firing range.
    - Lack of an automatic loader (crew of 4 people), while the T-90M and T-14 have one.
    - The Challenger 3 promises a smoothbore Rh-120 L55A1, but it is still in development.

    4. Problems with electronics and fire control systems (FCS)
    - The fire control system is not as advanced as that of the Abrams or Leopard 2.
    - No 3rd generation thermal imagers (like Abrams SEPv3).
    - Slower response to threats compared to tanks equipped with automatic target detection systems.

    5. Limited modernization and logistics
    - Britain has been delaying modernization for a long time, and only Challenger 3 (expected by 2027) should correct some of the shortcomings.
    - Small quantities (only ~200 Challenger 2 in service, Abrams – ~2500, Leopard 2 – ~2000).

    Final World
    The Challenger 2 is a decent tank, but it is significantly inferior to modern MBTs in mobility, firepower and technology. The Challenger 3 should fix some of the problems, but for now it remains an outsider compared to the Leopard 2A7, Abrams SEPv3 and T-90M.

    Compared to Russian tanks, the T-90M is superior in mobility and firepower, and the T-14 Armata is the next generation.
  9. Shelest2000
    Shelest2000
    +1
    12 June 2025 15: 11
    "Bradley". In my opinion, it's an unjustified delight. It has advantages in terms of protection and convenience of the troop compartment.

    These are the most important functions of the BMP - transportation and delivery of personnel to the battle/unloading site. It is one thing, as in our BMP, not adapted to the modern portable equipment of a soldier, who has to sit either on the armor or inside in the shrimp pose, another thing in a more spacious and protected compartment. Plus the convenience of loading/unloading through a wide folding ramp, including when transporting the wounded or cargo/ammunition.
    Chemezov named the Bradley's low cross-country ability and inability to overcome water obstacles as its main drawbacks, which, according to him, negates any attempts to strengthen protection.

    This "expert" forgot to say how often over these 3 years our infantry fighting vehicles had to overcome water obstacles in combat situations.
    The Bradley has a serious weakness: problems with cross-country ability. They get stuck in the black soil and become an easy target. So what's the point of improved protection if the result is the same?
    All the cars get stuck in the black soil, even our lighter ones.
    P.S. Sometimes I look at enemy resources. About half a year ago on some ukro-tlg-channel I found statements by ukro-warriors who used Soviet BMPs - 1,2,3 and the American Bradley. Yes, they also had threes, but not many, a dozen or even less. He then cited a bunch of different comparative characteristics and personal impressions of operation. He spoke most positively about the Bradley in terms of ease of loading, control, protection, ease of use of weapons, etc. Although it is an enemy, such opinions should be monitored and taken into account when building your own BMPs.

    In his opinion, the IFV should be, first of all, mobile, passable and amphibious, as is implemented in Russian models.

    His opinion is 100500 times the same as the opinion of our Arbat generals, to whom even drones until recently seemed like a whim and unworthy toys.
    Our IFVs were developed for another war and for a five-million-strong army in the European theater of combat operations and exclusively offensive, to reach the English Channel. And to be bigger and cheaper.
    But as time has shown, war is different now and the criterion for protecting personnel is the main one.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      0
      28 June 2025 23: 51
      As one American told me: Western equipment is for parades, and yours is for war. In Afghanistan, we took pictures with our weapons, but we took Kalashnikovs on patrols and raids. Our infantry fighting vehicles were at the bases, but we went to the mountains and villages in your armored personnel carriers, often sitting on the armor, although we had previously ridiculed your soldiers for this. And your helicopters were OK. We carried out all important operations on them, they handled the mountains better.

      Well, and often in combat, the size and maneuverability were more necessary than the convenience of the crew and the landing force. By the way, the speed of the landing force exiting the vehicles is almost the same. This has already been tested by our guys in the SVO. Yes, small rivers and reservoirs, if encountered and there was no resistance from the opposite bank, were overcome without crossings precisely on the BMP. In addition, our vehicles are very repairable compared to Western ones. There are many cases when ours themselves repaired the vehicle and continued to perform the combat mission, while the Western ones demanded evacuation even with minor breakdowns of the vehicle, the Ukrainians simply abandoned them.
      So if there is something useful to be taken from there, then that is what needs to be done. But not all that glitters is gold.
      1. Shelest2000
        Shelest2000
        0
        29 June 2025 16: 55
        svoroponov, drinks I'm not saying that all our technology is crap. And I'll never say that!
        Our equipment, originally from the USSR, was prepared for another war and for a multi-million army with rapid breakthroughs of defense in the European theater of military operations with numerous rivers and canals in the conditions of a limited (or full) nuclear war. That is why the criteria are such - lightness, speed, maneuverability. And the fact that the protection is no good, so tens of thousands of them were riveted.
        I mean that to create new equipment, you need to take the best from your enemies. Don't be shy (we have our own pride), develop your own/based on trophies/from honestly stolen :)) War is no time for shyness. And don't give a damn about all the "former owners" - we didn't come to them.
  10. Yyrp
    Yyrp
    -1
    12 June 2025 18: 37
    We have Vladimir Vladimirovich, with him everything is fine, so we will win.
  11. svoroponov
    svoroponov
    0
    28 June 2025 23: 26
    Shit also looks technological when it comes out of people’s asses, but the essence remains.
  12. savage3000
    savage3000
    0
    5 July 2025 01: 38
    Chemezov is of course complete... no words...