Watch it full screen, 57mn video.

Seventy years ago. Do they celebrate Afghanistan?

As an 'answer', i am all for celebrating victory with a parade in Germany, against Russia in 1917/18, and maybe another parade for the victory against France, in 1871/72.

And don't forget 1815.

Takes 31mn to get to the armor.

Its a big deal this parade.

What is more interesting is how it was not attended by other nations in such huge numbers. Historically it gets at least ambassadors from everywhere. Or even a US president like Bush 2 a few years back. Now next to no one. Good job Putin. You seem to becoming a little to Hitler like for the taste of the developed world. Ironic that one.

Notice the Chinese premier sitting next to Putin the entire show. And they even had Chinese soldiers
take part in the parade of Nations. Sadly all Western powers did not take part. I did notice that
Pakistan did show.

Sadly?

They need to get over themselves. There were probably as many Shermans in the Red Army as there were T-34's. And exactly how many Russian-made trucks hauled the beans, bandages and bullets to their soldiers? A lot of Detroit Deuce-and-a-halfs did. All thanx to American Lend Lease (for which we never received the "lease" part, btw).

Stalin cried for years for Britain and America to open the "second front". By my count, D-Day opened the fourth in Europe. Americans had been fighting in North Africa since '42, and Britain (which here and hereafter includes members of the British Commonwealth, colonies or otherwise) had been since long before that...even before Operation Barbarosa. And then Sicily and Italy. All against mostly or entirely German units that might have otherwise allowed Hitler to take Moscow and the Russian oil fields he wanted. And did I say "fourth"? That's because I consider the strategic bombing campaign carried out by Britain and America (with no help from "Mother Russia") as the third, YMMV.

And let's not forget that the USA started WWII on two fronts. In fact, Europe could have been left completely off the agenda, if Hitler hadn't brilliantly declared war against us.

So maybe next year Russia can do something to honor, or at least acknowledge, her allies in that war, British and American. Allies without whom she probably would have LOST!!!

They lost freaking 26 - 27 million people. Ya sure, the US and UK gave them alot of crap. But it was mainly paid for with Soviet blood. That is worth quite alot. A purely self centered nationalistic comment to follow. Better their blood than more US blood. Maybe if they had not tried to be buddy buddy with Hitler in the first place. Something that the rest of allies never really brought up after Hitler turned East.

But to put into more perspective, the US lost around 400,000 dead on all fronts. The UK And at the start of the war Bulgaria had a much more sizable Army than the US. UK total losses (including civies) where around 450,000, but was 1/3 the size of the US at the time. So while the Russians love to gloss over the material given by the allies, they did spill a stupid amount of their blood as well as European Axis power blood. They did do the bulk of the fighting once they where done shooting Polish POW's.

They did ALL the fighting...on the Russian front. They also did some fighting against Japan...after the US had reduced the Japanese Empire to the home islands and a few cut off divisions that they couldn't rescue from Mongolia and China, and after the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. We'll never know for sure, but I personally doubt they would have participated in an invasion of Japan proper. Especially considering they were still mopping up in Korea after Japan had signed the surrender on the Missouri, if I'm not mistaken.

They lost 26-27 million people. Several million of whom were civilian casualties. And probably a good portion of those were killed by Soviet soldiers, either because of the tactics employed by the Red Army (after all, if the generals aren't concerned with the lives of their soldiers why should they give a hoot about a town full of civilians?) or as reprisals for collaboration, real or suspected. Of course once the shooting stopped the propaganda machine had no problem turning all those collaborators into "martyrs for the Motherland".

And about my parenthetical remark in the previous paragraph...the main Soviet tactic was the same "human wave" assault that proved so wasteful in WWI. The difference is that the Soviet mindset didn't care about the lives lost, only the land won. Western forces used mine sweepers that detected fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field. Russian minesweeping consisted of ordering companies of soldiers to walk through fields or be shot by their own troops (who then would likely have become "martyrs", too). "Don't follow someone who got blown up, Vladimir." Sorry, if you're not going to take any precautions to reduce your casualties during the war don't bemoan the number of people who died after it.

I was waiting to see the new Russian armor without the tarps on the turrets, T-14 in particular, but that cat was let out of the bag a few days ago so it spoiled the surprise.

The T-14 sounds pretty impressive if even half of what I heard so far is true and it works as intended.

What the Red Army matured into after the dark days was not really about human wave attacks. It was their deep battle with tanks supported by infantry, supported by artillery, supported by tactical air when able. In other words, the same as everyone else that started with the Germans who got it down right from go.


Well who know what the T-14 can do. But its ok. The M1 Abrams will be the standard main battle tank until 2050 when it turns 70 years old. Since you know, heavies are out. And light weight wheeled vehicles with only machine guns and grenade launchers are in. UGH. Now probably need to start a crash heavy AFV program to take to the field by 2030 to counter this new whatever the hell the T14 can do. But considering its 35 years newer than the M1, probably alot. Hell even the new Russian light armored vehicles can chain fire anti tank guided missiles on the move. our 35 year old Bradley's have to stop and fire their wired guided missiles one at a time. Not to mention, the 25mm while quite good, might have issues with modern much heavier IFV's and the like. But its ok, we have the Stryker with its non-stabilized 12.7mm M2hb machinegun to counter. Good lord....

Btw over all soldier deaths ended up 4.5 - 5 million dead German soldiers. And 8 to 13 million dead soviet soldiers. How many of those where killed/died in POW camps? Who knows. But as in all wars, its civies that get killed off the most. And they do not do human wave attacks. Other tactics that where the only option, such as shelling towns and cities everyone did. In the case of the Red Army trying to recapture lost land there really was little realistic choice there. So shelling a captured city that was full of the enemy and your people was the only viable option. Sure its better if your shelling French civies and not your own people attempting to remove an Army. But this was ww2. No precision weapons and assets. Just big hammers.

Two of my grandfathers fought on Eastern Front in Red Army, and from none of then I heard any stories about sending a human wave attacks hoping to win just with greater numbers, especially in later years. Officers who were close to the action actually cared about casualties.

Not to mention friendly fire which sure did occur.

Supposedly there will now be a new U.S. MBT in the 2020s, although IMO that's kind of iffy considering the financial situation and the fact that U.S. institutional experience in tank design has been allowed to whither away.

There was a tech demonstrator build by the DOD/General dynamics I think some years ago
Seen some footage of it very low profile.
The M1A2 SEP is still the tank to beat on the modern battlefield.
Not enough is known about The T-14 Amarta yet to compare it with western designs
But I think its safe to assume it was designed to take on the Abrams and leo-2A6/7 on a more equal footing then previous T Tanks.
The Germans have approved funding for a new leo tank

The T-14 seems to be a catch-up to NATO MBT's rather than something that out classes them.

The adoption of the T-14 and production means the Russians can now start exporting T-80's they have in inventory.

And the Soviets/Russians have always been ahead of the USA on Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Say what one will about the BMP, it was better than the M113 in delivering troops to the battlefield and exploiting the offense.

The Abrams made its reputation based off of destroying a bunch of antiques and a some vastly underspec T-72s, ran by the same bunch who are now losing armored battles in M1s vs 7th century hipsters in Toyota pickups...

There is a element a truth in that statement
The forces facing the Americans were all but beaten before the tanks rolled out
But don't take anything away from the men and machines of the US Army both performed superbly
The Abrams has its issues. Fuel consumption etc but overall it really is a good tank.

The T-14 looks be a Merkava clone. 2 man crew with fully auto loading and remotely operated turret.
They even made a hardened shell to surround the crew. Check out some youtube videos posted on them.