Sven Ortmann
Active member
rock45; the Russian equipment is often designed quite specifically for their concept of war, their operational and tactical concepts, their style of training and for their anticipated army strengths. The anti-air missiles for example were just a part of an overall air war system that involved a much more serious fighter component than the Arabs were able to launch. Their tanks were designed with typical Eastern bloc training and Cold War terrains (mostly Europe and PRC border) in mind - and happened to be ill-suited for open deserts and also happened to be employed without the necessary tactical proficiency by Syrians and Egyptians. Western equipment failed sometimes just as much when taken out of proper context - remember the loss of Sheffield, which was sunk (by in fact a Western missile) because it wasn't on a transatlantic convoy facing Bears and Badgers with their huge dive attack missiles, but in a picket position facing a very low altitude fighter-bomber/sea-skimmer threat. Or look at our counter-mortar radars which were rather disappointing in COIN due to their lack of all-round surveillance. They were designed for a kind of line battle in Germany or Korea, not for all-round base security.
The really remarkable thing about Iskander isn't its performance anyway. 100 kg less warhead, 150km less range, only monkey model accuracy - that wouldn't make much difference. It's remarkable and extremely interesting because it's an alternative to very demanding strike packages (at least against some target categories) that might work even against enemy air supremacy. Iskander is basically the only thing that really justifies the ATBM efforts, the concept is a really big deal.
The really remarkable thing about Iskander isn't its performance anyway. 100 kg less warhead, 150km less range, only monkey model accuracy - that wouldn't make much difference. It's remarkable and extremely interesting because it's an alternative to very demanding strike packages (at least against some target categories) that might work even against enemy air supremacy. Iskander is basically the only thing that really justifies the ATBM efforts, the concept is a really big deal.