(
Disclaimer: this is an total arm chair general comment from me, all active and retired military you have my consent to smack me across the face here, this is somewhat coming from the perspective of an engineering point of view, Thank you.)
I agree and disagree on your point, the Gulf War was mainly last generation export models of Soviet armor against tanks like the Challenger and Abrams, meant to counter current Soviet MBTs not cut down value pack export models. For instance how ISIS captured Export Abrams with almost no problem.
Proving your training argument spot on, tanks are idle tools without trained crews to use them.
However let us look as this in terms of Russian armored development throughout history.
- First to use mostly reliable diesel when western tanks did not.
- First to have effective sloped armor when homogenous armor was the beeze neeze on a production tank during a time of war.
- First to have equipped any mass produced tank with an smooth bore gun ever, scaring NATO designers into adopting the design their selves, now it's everywhere.
- One of the first to produce and trail a production tank with a turbine engine, and also learned it's disadvantages. Long supply chains needed, catches fire easily when invading Chechnya ect.
- Also first nation to build an effective active protection system on any tank, and when did they do this? 21st century? ... Wrong, they did it back in the good ole' USSR!
- First nation to make effective APFSDS rounds to go with those new smoothbores built in the 60's.
Point is, technically a T 90 MS the most modern version of Russian tank, can outrange, yes outrange and potentially hit a Leopard 2 A7, an M1A2 Sep ll. And even an Challenger 2...
Because that 2A46M can fire ATGM's out of the barrel without modifications before hand out effectively ranging all ammunition types on most MBTs.
Within 18 seconds this warhead can be delivered up to 6 KM.
Point is... Like America or Germany, outside of NATO they don't sell the BEST machines. Russia more or less sticks to this doctrine.
Iraq did not have modernized T 80us. Nor modern training.
Russia can make good tanks, Russia has made good tanks, Russia is making good tanks. Russia also has good tankers, but like in the Chechnya debacle it was poor communication and leadership that led Russian armored forces to disaster.
During their invasion of Georgia, outdated 60's technology trumped the Georgian model NATO forces. Why? Good tankers soldiers and pilots were not molested by bad leadership and bad communications networks. And could do their job. Like NATO machines, paper stats are for salesmen, training budgets are almost more important as the gear in any professional army. And that will never change.
Also Georgia was tiny, but hey, Grenada anyone?