Russia: Western armor falls short in combat
In a recent interview, Sergey Chemezov, CEO of Russian defense and technology giant Rostec, offered critical assessments of Western armored vehicles used by Ukrainian forces, claiming that American, German, and British designs lack technical innovations worth adopting.
Chemezov acknowledged the quality of the German-made Leopard 2 main battle tank but downplayed its relevance for Russian engineers.
“The Leopard tank is well made: modern components, fire control system, powerful engine, although with strange temperature limitations,” he said. “But we didn’t see any breakthrough design solutions—there’s nothing we could take from the Leopard and apply to our own platforms.”
His most pointed comments were aimed at the British Challenger 2, which he referred to as a “pot,” calling it ill-suited for actual combat. “We’d like to examine it, mostly out of curiosity. It’s obvious in advance that it’s a ‘pot,’ not very suitable for real warfare,” Chemezov remarked.
He then compared Western vehicles to Russia’s latest main battle tank. “If you compare their tanks with ours, the advantage of the T-90M ‘Proryv’ lies in its firepower, armor, and mobility. It has a longer reach thanks to a guided munition and all-angle dynamic protection,” Chemezov said. “There have been cases where dozens of Ukrainian drones hit the vehicle, and it remained operational.”
Turning to the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, Chemezov pushed back against praise it has received in Russian and foreign commentary. While conceding its advantages in crew protection and internal layout, he questioned its tactical effectiveness.
“Some experts, including ours, praise the Bradley. In my opinion—that’s unjustified enthusiasm. We looked at it from all sides: yes, it has some positives in terms of protection and troop compartment comfort. But that doesn’t stop our weapons from destroying the vehicle along with its crew and passengers,” he said.
Chemezov further criticized the Bradley’s off-road performance and lack of amphibious capability. “The Bradley has a serious weak spot: problems with mobility. It struggles off-road and gets stuck in black soil, becoming an easy target due to its large size,” he said. “And what’s the use of better protection if the result is the same? Nearly all Bradleys delivered to Ukraine have been destroyed. We have to remember, an IFV is not a tank. It should be fast, mobile, capable of crossing rivers unaided. Our IFVs can do that, the American ones cannot.”
His comments have drawn attention for their tone, particularly his statement: “What’s the use of better protection if the result is the same?” Even some Russian commentators noted the cynicism in that remark, given that in multiple documented cases, Ukrainian crews have survived direct hits inside Bradleys—while Russian troops in BMP-3s, BMD-4s, or BTR-82s often suffer fatal outcomes from mines or FPV drone strikes.
In contrast, Russian units have adopted the practice of riding on top of their vehicles rather than inside them, hoping to survive a blast by being thrown clear—an approach rarely needed with Western platforms that offer superior crew survivability.
Chemezov’s remarks align with broader Russian messaging aimed at undermining confidence in NATO-supplied equipment. However, battlefield data from Ukraine consistently shows that Western armored vehicles—particularly the Leopard 2 and M2 Bradley—have helped Ukrainian forces absorb and survive attacks that have proven far deadlier for Russian crews inside domestic platforms.
***
defence-blog