In the latest issue of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) “Razvedchik” in-house magazine, Sergey Chemezov, the head of the Rostec Russian state-owned defense conglomerate, was asked whether he had “managed to extract anything useful or new for [Russia]” from studying Western equipment captured by the Russian military on operations in Ukraine.
“We study all the trophies that come our way. If we come across something useful, of course, we add it to our ‘piggy bank’,” Chemezov answered. From his assessment, he acknowledged that the tanks had some good features but considered that most of them had nothing much to offer Russia or were “completely inapplicable to our reality.”
He went on to say that his engineers had carefully examined the recovered German-made Leopard 2A6 tank that was dispatched to the Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod tank factory in October.
He said it showed high-levels of production value and contained modern components, an efficient fire control system, and a powerful engine – but did not see “any breakthrough design solutions” and nothing Russia could take from the tank to apply to its own production.
Speaking about the M1A1 Abrams, recovered for examination in December, Chemezov said it was “an interesting machine, although there is nothing to take from there either.”
He then said, “I would like to take a look at the British Challenger, more out of curiosity… as it is clear it is nothing more than a ‘saucepan’ – not very suitable for real battles.”
He then dismissed the US Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), which has garnered such a good reputation among Ukrainian troops and commentators alike, as having received “unjustified enthusiasm.”
Chemezov acknowledged that “It has advantages in terms of protection and the convenience of its troop compartment,” before claiming Russian forces had destroyed nearly all the Bradleys sent by Washington along with their crews.
He said the IFV has serious weak points: poor cross-country capability, forcing it to move on roads: “[If they] move off-road, through fields, they get stuck in the black soil and, due to their huge dimensions, become an easy target. What’s the point of improved protection if the result is the same?”
“The main problem with most foreign machines is the complexity of the design and labor-intensive maintenance,” which he claimed had been exposed by battlefield conditions in Ukraine, before moving on to compare Western armored vehicles with Russia’s – unsurprisingly claiming Moscow’s systems were superior.
Chemezov said that the Russian T-90M “Proryv” (Breakthrough) tank excels in firepower, using missiles to offer longer range, armor, all-round dynamic protection and better mobility than German or US tanks. “There were cases when dozens of Ukrainian drones hit the vehicle, and it remained combat-ready,” he boasted.
He then went on to compare the advantages of Russian IFV over the Bradley: “… we must remember that an IFV is not a tank. This vehicle must be fast, mobile, passable, able to cross rivers by swimming, without bridges or roads. Our IFVs can do this, but the American ones can’t.”
Despite Chemezov’s spin, the facts and figures tell another story. According to the open-source intelligence analysis site Oryx, Russia has lost 4,041 tanks, including 137 T-90M tanks, while Ukraine has lost 1,198 tanks, including 27 Leopard 2 tanks, 18 Leopard 1 tanks, 22 Abrams tanks, and 2 Challenger 2 tanks.
Video evidence shared on social media showed two Bradleys taking on and beating a T-90M, while a single Bradley knocked out three Russian BMP-2s in another – which tends to contradict the Russian battlefield superiority Chemezov claimed in his commentary.