How do you say “wunderwaffen” in Russian ?

The Ukrainian theater of war is rich in lessons, and particularly on one point: the reality of the modernization of the Russian armed forces. In fact, in recent years, Moscow has provided us with videos of revolutionary weapons which, in fact, have never appeared on the front line! This raises the question of their existence apart from prototypes presented as operational…

Above: a BMP-T seen in Ukraine. Only 10 examples are actually operational.

 

« wunderwaffen » Concept

If we use the term wunderwaffe (with a plural n) here, it is in reference to the well-documented concept of German miracle weapons in World War II which, as the Reich lost ground, were presented as solutions capable of changing the course of the conflict.

 

In fact, if many wunderwaffen remained at the prototype or simply drawing stage, the Nazis also deployed in an operational manner the Tiger tank, the first assault rifle or the first jet aircraft. However, all these weapons did not stand up to operational realities, (le fameux combat proven),  and never had a major influence on the course of the war.

The Wolfenstein games exploit the wunderwaffen, adding an occult dimension.

 

 

Today, we can apply this concept to Russia, itself heir to a USSR that was also accustomed to concepts as ambitious as they were excessive, like the Ekranoplanes.

 

The failure of analysts

A bit of background: during the 2000s, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he would put an end to the decrepitude of the Russian armed forces, which were heavily marked by the implosion of the Soviet bloc. He then launched major reforms aimed at professionalizing the armies and, above all, modernizing them by developing breakthrough weapons.

The new MRAP “Tigr” did not last long in the field.

 

The operations in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014, then Syria in 2015, are great successes for Moscow, which then shows the world its military power and technological mastery, which places it on an equal footing with the most modern armies. In addition to this, there are large demonstrations of forces such as the annual ZAPAD exercise, the images of which are seen around the world.

The communication is effective, the observers convinced, at least until the Ukrainian conflict which reveals, in fact, the military deficiencies of Russia: in reality, the bulk of the troops is made up of conscripts and obsolete equipment, incapable of resisting to modern weapons. As for the professional troops, they are too few in number and poorly commanded, and the modern equipment is either defective or too few in number.

Where are the famous Uran-9 robots? They were tested in Syria, where they had some failures.

 

Пропаганда (propaganda)?

So, is it going too fast to conclude that the Russian military force today rests on technological bases that are at best fragile, at worst non-existent ?

It is necessary to keep a sense of reason, but it must be noted that the Armata tank has been exhibited for almost 10 years without having entered into production (video Armata broken down on Red Square), that the dreaded Russian anti-aircraft defense has been dramatically failed several times, or that robots and combat drones are absent from the theater of war (even though they were presented with a lot of videos), as well as the famous BMP-Terminator, as well as the famous BMP-Terminator, of which only 10 examples are in fact operational.

 

During the Second World War, the wunderwaffen did not, in fact, aim to defeat or terrify the enemy, but to reassure the German population by giving it the illusion of superpower and control of events.  A strategy that is visibly still effective today, while the world’s media are raving about the hypersonic threat  or about concepts as far-fetched as the Satan 2 missile.

The “Ratnik-3” suit presented in 2018.

 

In pop culture, video games and movies like to create formidable enemies. And Russia has often constituted the adversary par excellence, providing a hegemonic and formidable military power. It seems time, today, to give a more realistic, and therefore authentic, image.

Arming transport aircraft

Les avions de transport militaire ont quelque chose de mythique, en particulier dans la pop culture.  On en saute en parachute, on les utilise pour mener des opérations spéciales ou on utilise leurs immenses soutes pour des scènes d’actions toutes plus farfelues les unes que les autres. Mais pour l’heure, aucun scénario n’a osé intégrer une tendance lourde des avionneurs, qui consiste à transformer un transport en plateforme de tir pour missiles.

Ci-dessus: un KC-130J équipé du kit d’armes aéroportées Harvest Hercules (HAWK).

 

La révolution du Close Air Support

La Guerre Froide et l’avènement de la chasse à réaction ont mis fin au règne des grands bombardiers de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Mais leurs héritiers, les  cargos militaires, ont survécu et continué à se moderniser avec un grand nombre de success stories, que ce soit en Amérique (le Hercules et le Galaxy notamment), en URSS (les Antonov qui sont, rappelons-le, ukrainiens), ou en Europe (le Casa et l’A-400M pour ne citer que les plus récents).

Un C-130H argentin équipé de bombes en 1982.

 

La pop-culture s’est aussi emparée de la version « combat » de l’Hercules, et a élevé l’AC-130 Gunship au rang d’icône de la destruction, avec une « mort venue du ciel » (titre de la mission mythique de Call Of Duty Modern Warfare).

Pourtant, dans la réalité, le Close Air Support (appui-feu aérien rapproché) subit depuis une vingtaine d’années une petite révolution, sous l’effet combiné de deux tendances lourdes :

  • La première est que les avions de combat coutent de plus en plus cher tant à acheter qu’a entretenir et à faire voler. De fait, ils sont de moins en moins nombreux, et sont recentrés sur leurs missions principales, à savoir la chasse et la pénétration des défenses aériennes ennemies ;
  • La seconde est que les missiles sont de plus en plus précis et que, à condition d’être correctement orientés sur la cible (notamment avec un guidage laser par le sol ou par les airs), sont parfaitement autonomes à partir du moment où ils sont tirés.

Cela a donc logiquement conduit les forces aériennes et les avionneurs à imaginer transformer des avions moins onéreux, comme les turbopropulseurs ou les avions de transport, en plateforme de tir low cost mais tout aussi efficaces.

Les Iraniens ont également testé les bombes lisses depuis C-130. Sans grande réussite.

 

Le C130, un avion Old School de nouvelle génération

A tout seigneur tout honneur… l’Hercules C-130 a encore de beaux jours devant lui : outre sa version hydravion dont nous avons déjà parlé, plusieurs solutions pour lui faire tirer des missiles ont été présentées. La plus classique passe par des pods sous les ailes, mais on a aussi pu voir une porte arrière transformée en lance-missiles ou une porte latérale convertie en éjecteur à air comprimé pour de petits missiles de type Brimstone.

Projet français par Sagem, Rafaut and AA / ROK pour des bombes guidées AASM.

 

Le C-130 est aussi la machine privilégiée pour des projets d’armes laser, ainsi que pour le projet Gremlins, qui ambitionne de déployer des essaims de drones d’attaque réutilisables et, de fait, en mesure d’être récupérés en plein vol. Plus récemment, des tests de missiles de croisière « palettisés » ou de missiles antinavires ont également été menées.

Bien évidemment, c’est le C-130 Commando, la version dédiée aux opérations spéciales, qui a été choisie pour accueillir ces solutions, qui se superposent à des capacités de transport, d’aérolargage et d’atterrissage et de décollage sur des pistes sommaires, qui restent des prérequis pour l’USSCOCOM.

 

Smaller but stronger

Dans la même veine que le C-130, mais avec un ici un appareil moins imposant, Airbus a présenté deux versions armées de son petit transporteur tactique C295 :

  • Un « gunship », équipé de mitrailleuses de 12,7mm ou d’un canon de 27mm ;
  • Un bombardier doté de points d’emports pour des missiles (y compris antinavire) ou des paniers de roquettes guidées.

 

Descendons encore d’un cran, avec un cas très particulier, un appareil plus petit, et surtout plus rustique : le MC145B Coyote, version modifiée et armée du vénérable M28 Skytruck. Capable de se poser en environnement austère, ce robuste appareil peut emporter une petite équipe tout en déployant des bombes ou missiles guidés.

 

Cela rappellera un peu la militarisation des turbopropulseurs agricoles, ou même de certains hélicoptères civils. Une vraie tendance qui devrait largement convaincre dans certaines régions du monde.

Appliqué au jeu vidéo, ces appareils peuvent constituer un riche élément de gameplay, servant à la fois de base mobile, de système de soutien à améliorer progressivement durant une campagne.

The “Combat proven” notion

Video games and movies are fond of modern weaponry, even prototypes that are often put forward in blockbusters or AAA. However, is this veneer of military authenticity realistic in operational terms? Nothing is less certain, insofar as many of these devices have never faced the test of fire, and acquired the title of “combat proven”. 

Above: The Rafale, reliable and versatile, is the perfect example of equipment whose success has been forged by operational proof – photo Dassault Aviation.

 

Truth comes from the field

The notion of “Combat proven” is rather simple: it designates a military equipment that has proven its efficiency in combat…

The now famous Javelin missile. 

This may seem devilishly logical, and yet it is not necessarily self-evident: many pieces of military equipment have, in reality, never seen operational deployment or mass production, but have been the subject of active state propaganda (such as the Russian “miracle weapons”), or more simply of advertising by their manufacturer.  

In fact, the history of war is full of equipment sold massively to armies, and which once on the front line were at best unsuitable, at worst totally defective, and which are nevertheless raised to the rank of icons. 

For example, the the Gatling machine gun, was so unreliable that it was abandoned less than three years after it entered service, or the iconic German Tigers, which were in fact real mechanical and logistical ordeals.   

The Tiger tank is the subject of an innacurate legend.

Perhaps the best counter-example to this notion is the Rafale. Long shunned in the marketplace, mainly because of its cost, the aircraft suddenly became a commercial success story the day the French Air Force began using it extensively for missions, reliably and successfully (unlike its European competitor, the Eurofighter Typhoon, which by comparison has rarely faced a combat mission).  

In the foreground, a British Typhoon. In the second row, a French Rafale.  

 

 

The “Combat Proven” and the video game  

Even though the big studios claim respect and precision for military authenticity, what is it really? We have already largely beaten this concept in the management of military gesture or certain types of weapons such as SMG or Shotguns, and it is unfortunately the same with vehicles… In fact, while the publishers claim to work with specialists (and listen to them), it is above all marketing that guides the choices.

The Leopard 2s are formidable on paper, but the German army is suffering from serious availability problems. 

Therefore, a competitive multiplayer game like War Thunder, where players compete by taking possession of tanks, planes or ships, has to maintain its free-to-play economic system by constantly adding new vehicles, including prototypes. And here we find ourselves with in-game dominant nations such as contemporary Germany (a country that does not go to war, and that is therefore largely spared by Combat Proven), or Russia (whose equipment is strangely overpriced due to a “showcase” propaganda that is now belied by the Ukrainian experience). 

The dreaded Russian mechanized force has largely disappointed in Ukraine.

 

This phenomenon affects most of the Triple AAA, which move away from their initial promises of authenticity to play on a “badass” and marketing effect. This is the case of the V-22 Osprey, un appareil somme toute fragile, used to excess under virtual fire, or of course of the latest generation of combat aircraft (including stealth aircraft, which is nonsense!) that we see flying around in the air through flak fire.  

 

 

Fortunately, respect for authenticity, or even for the specificities of the equipment, is mostly respected in tactical or simulation. So if you are looking for authenticity and realism, these are the ones to turn to.

There are plenty of examples in video games and movies of materials that make a mockery of “Combat Proven”. On Taisson, we work hard to defend authenticity above all, for a better depth of experience, both in the gameplay and in the narrative. So don’t hesitate to participate in the discussion or to ask us for advice.  

The “Jack in the Box” effect

Everyone who has been watching images of destroyed Soviet-designed tanks in recent weeks has been asking the same question : why do they lose their turrets so spectacularly when hit in combat ? The answer is well known : it is the “Jack in the box” effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBaxDMrQp-Q

If today’s post is less focused on the video game than usual (although, since it can feed a reflection on the destruction of vehicles and explosions), it will nevertheless allow us to pay tribute to the quality of modeling in War Thunder, including the “X-ray” option that will allow us to illustrate our remarks with home-made captures. 

 

Russian tankers, condemned «by design» 

In the vision of Soviet armoured combat, firepower and the number of tanks have prevailed over survivability since the T-34. With this in mind, Warsaw Pact engineers worked on tanks of simple design, with substantial firepower and a lowered profile.  

To be able to arm more tanks, the Soviets also relied on a crew of 3 soldiers, and thus chose to do without the magazine, replaced by the mechanical autoloader. Fatal mistake, because this loading system, as it was designed in Russia, exposes the ammunition to the impact of enemy projectiles on the turret, creating a chain reaction that pulverizes the tank and its crew.  

The best example of this vulnerability is the T-72, the tank that has suffered the most casualties in the Ukrainian conflict (including its latest modernized versions). The T-72’s ammunition is housed in a carousel-type automatic magazine directly below the main turret and crew members, and is therefore particularly vulnerable to any impact from the flanks. 

 

On more modern Russian tanks, such as the T-80BVM, or the T-90, the design is similar :

 

As for the T-64, older and mainly used by Ukrainians :

 

In the long run, only the new T-14 Armata tank should solve this vulnerability, but it seems to be, for the time being, only one of the multiple Russian “miracle weapons”, over-publicized but not mass-produced, and even less aligned in combat… 

 

In the West, priority to crew protection 

At the sight of these 3D models, you suddenly think that a career in the heavy cavalry may not be such a good idea after all. Rest assured, because the Western doctrine, which has focused on the survivability of tanks and crews, offers a few more guarantees.  

Indeed, on most Western tanks, ammunition is kept under the floor, where the armour is thickest, or at the rear of the turret in a specific compartment. This storage compartment is not especially well protected, but it has the ingenious feature of directing the explosion outwards, and thus preserving the life of the crew and the integrity of the tank, which remains functional.  

Most modern tanks are concerned, but it is probably the American tanks of the M1 Abrams family that are the best equipped in this respect :  

 

Other examples below with the German Leopard 2 and the French Leclerc. The ammunition is sheltered in special compartments :

 

Finally, it should be noted that not all Western tanks have corrected this defect. This is the case of the Israeli Merkava. Its ultra-profiled turret does not allow, or no longer allows, adaptation in terms of ammunition management, and it relies instead on “hard kill”  protection systems. 

Hit & Sink

The recent loss of the cruiser Moskva by Russia during the Ukrainian conflict has put naval combat back in the spotlight, and made the general public aware that beyond the fascination exerted by a fighting fleet, an instrument and symbol of a nation’s power, a modern warship can still sink… And if the cinema has long taken hold of the symbol, from Red October to Battleship to Das Boot, video games have not yet fully exploited the naval dimension of conflicts. 

 Illustration above: presentation of the “Naval Strike” DLC of Battlefield 4 (2014).

 

A complex video game object 

Naval military history is fascinating because it is made of innovations, adventures, fascinating personalities and tragic battles. But if naval, aerial and amphibious battles have long been part of action games (as in the great landing scenes of Call of Duty or Medal of Honor), this is not what true naval warfare fans are looking for. 

In fact, it is perhaps the “Total War” series of strategy games that has best exploited the power of the great fleets of the past in its various opuses. Thus, in Empire, in 2009, fleets are of paramount importance in the control of the world in the 18th century, and this is also the case in the episodes concerning Rome (notably in the control of the Mediterranean basin and the fight to the death against Carthage) and Ancient Greece (where my Athenian triremes are indispensable in the fight against Persia). 

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey offers some epic moments in the Aegean Sea !

 

Ubisoft also tried to capture the fury of boarding in its Assassin’s Creed Black Flag. If the management of naval artillery is totally wacky, let’s admit that the knife fights lend themselves perfectly to assaults on the decks of Spanish galleons. Origins (2017) and Odyssey (2018) tried to reuse the recipe (who could have imagined anything else from the publisher?) by transposing it to Antiquity, but the result is quite disappointing… Let’s hope that Skulls and Bones, the arlesian of the pirate game, will come to rectify the shot !

 

The Second World War, a market of its own 

If there is one period of naval warfare that is over-represented in video games, it is the Second World War. It is true that it offers two major scenaristic axes, with the advent of naval aviation (with the Pacific War and its epic confrontations, especially rendered in aerial simulations) and especially the submarine and its alter-ego, the destroyer (Battle of the Atlantic), but also.  

In fact, the Silent Hunter series (published, then developed by Ubisoft) has had, for almost 30 years, unconditional fans who continue to model games that are always striking in their realism and technicality. Today, it has various heirs, such as “UBOAT” which allows you, in addition to fighting, to manage your entire crew in faithfully reconstructed submarines. Or “Destroyer – The U-Boat Hunter“, which will soon offer to play the pack hunter like its distant ancestor, Advanced Destroyer Simulator. 

Uboat (2019) allows you to manage your submarine crew.

 

To be completely objective, let’s not forget the great successful multiplayer games such as “World of Warships” or “War Thunder” which have managed to make confrontations that had long remained austere accessible to the general public. Above all, they ensure the transmission of a certain naval culture to the players.  

Today we reach an impressive level of detail : here the USS Arizona in War Thunder.

World of warships, rare game giving access to the magnificent French battleship Richelieu. 

 

Modern naval combat: as exciting as it is misunderstood 

Maritime combat is therefore rather to its credit in video games, but there is one period that remains rather under-exploited: the contemporary period, despite some attempts like in “Battlefield 4”.  

Yet it, too, offers exciting scenarios, with state-of-the-art fleets and complex missions, from intelligence to special forces extraction to large-scale conflict. 

This lack of interest is perhaps due to the modern combat ships, much less badass than their battleship and cannon-armored predecessors, but which actually offer a much greater strike force with their discreet but formidable missiles, and soon their hypersonic missiles, or even their railguns, initially planned to equip the stealth destroyer Zumwalt.  

Some opuses (still in the world of RTS) have tried to include naval combat in their gameplay and narrative, such as “Wargame – Red dragon” (2014), or the very sharp “Command: Modern Operations”, a game certainly austere, but with one of the most incredible military databases on the market. We can also mention the mythical Fleet Command, edited by the world leader of the military database Jane’s, which tries to launch itself in the video game at the end of the 90s. 

The next generation is undoubtedly assured: “Sea Power“, wisely subtitled “Naval Combat in the Missile Age“, will propose this year to plunge you into a fictitious naval war of the Cold War. A very interesting choice, especially since this context has often been the basis of anthology techno-thrillers, and especially those of and especially those of Tom Clancy !

Sea Power will put you in the 1980s. And yes, the F-14 Tomcat is there ! 

 

Let’s hope that this article will give ideas to the editors: there is no lack of inspiring scenarios, from the Falklands war to the “Praying Mantis” operation, the famous confrontation between the USA and Iran in the Persian Gulf in 1988…