Russian tanks were at the top of the list of the most potent weapons of war for a long time. It was whispered that these huge armored monsters were on their way through Europe and the Middle East. But in fact, in the recent wars in Ukraine and Syria, they have been called quite the opposite – these machines (mainly the T-72 and its derivatives) are being referred to as the most destructed tanks worldwide.

Conceived for Offense, Not Stamina

The T-72 came from the Cold War Soviet rules. It was not made to do many tasks, unlike most Western main tanks. Its job was to move fast at the front, smash through enemy lines, and make way for others following. To save money and make more quickly, it used an auto-loader allowing just three men to run it, and its smooth design made it stay low in fight areas.

A retired T-72 commander once distilled it to: “versatile, quick, simple to operate, and a low-cost killing machine.” That ethos extended to subsequent Russian tanks, which continued to borrow extensively from the T-72’s rudimentary design template. But though periodic upgrades provided improved armor and firepower, the foundational design never really transformed to keep pace with contemporary combat requirements.

Harsh Lessons in Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq

The past ten years have been harsh for the T-72 family. Ukraine alone has lost close to 2,000 T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s in more than a year of combat, frequently against Ukrainian troops running older T-64s supported by Western anti-tank missiles. Images and footage of Russian tanks charred beyond recognition have become so ubiquitous that they’re all but a dark standard of the conflict.

Syria shares the same tale. The Syrian Arab Army lost nearly 1,000 T-72s in under a decade, and most of them were destroyed by barely armed insurgents. American, Iraqi, and Saudi Abrams tanks in similar situations suffered greatly fewer losses throughout an extended timespan. Even Russian accounts concur on the magnitude of these defeats.

A Design That Punishes Its Crews

One of the largest design failures in Russian tanks is the storage of ammunition. In the T-72 and its variants, the shells are stored in a carousel loader under the turret, directly beneath the crew. If an opposing round penetrates the armor, the ammunition will explode on the spot, frequently sending the turret flying into the air in a now-notorious “jack-in-the-box” movement.

Western tanks, such as the Abrams or Leopard, in contrast, keep their ammunition within armor compartments with blow-out panels, so if the ammo cooks off, the explosion vents away from the crew. That detail has saved thousands of Western tankers—and killed many Russian crews.

Training, Leadership, and the Human Element

Hardware is only half the battle. The skill and discipline of the crew can make or break a tank’s effectiveness. In Iraq, poorly trained crews in T-72s were no match for Western forces. In Ukraine and Syria, similar issues have surfaced: inexperienced crews, poor coordination, and panic under fire.

One of the most popular viral clips came from Ukraine and depicted a highly skilled Bradley Fighting Vehicle crew taking out Russia’s best-of-the-line T-90M with a round into the weakly armored rear. The Russian crew didn’t even fight hard, leaving their tank to be finished off by a drone. Military analysts maintain that a lot of Russia’s most skilled tank crews were lost in early fighting, replaced by inexperienced troops inadequately trained for high-intensity battles.

Western Armor Compared

Western tanks such as the Leopard and Abrams typically weigh more, are more expensive, and have much better optics, armor, and survivability. Even the Bradley—technically an infantry fighting vehicle, not a tank—is a repeat destroyer of Russian armor when operated by experienced crews with modern ammunition and fire control systems.

The Bigger Lesson

The destruction of Russian tank armies isn’t solely a matter of old designs. It’s a matter of the intersection of inherent weaknesses, poorly trained crews, and a contemporary battlefield filled with drones, guided missiles, and precision munitions.

The T-72 was designed for a type of warfare that does not now exist. In modern conflict, numbers are not enough to secure victory. Survivability, flexibility, and the ability of the crew count much more, and the experience of Russian armor in Syria and Ukraine confirms it.

More related images you may be interested in:

Formerly one of the most envied vessels in the Russian navy, Admiral Kuznetsov was a flying aircraft carrier designed to clearly demonstrate Soviet power to the entire planet. Its building, although it actually began in 1985, was such that the ship had already been dispatched for its first journey in the early 1990s, hence expected to stand for the strength and reach of the Soviet Union.

On the contrary, it has hardly been able to celebrate its professional life, being more associated with obstructions, incidents, and the ever-increasing repair expenses than with any period of continuous operational work.

The ship had been having problems from the very beginning. The circulating mazut is a heavy fuel with characteristics that to tar and is very inefficient as well as very hard on the engines. Thus, unlike the U.S. nuclear-powered carriers, Kuznetsov is very noisy and dirty. White, electrical, and engine problems have been so common that tugboats have become co-travelers of such ships.

The carrier’s bad combat history is just one more reason for them to question her. Her inability to function correctly was the reason why the disappearance of several planes took place in her 2016 mission off the coast of Syria, rather than enemy attacks, to be more precise, short circuits in the arrestor wires and old launchers are the causes of the loss.

Not only the ship but also the people who built and maintained her have been affected by the years that have passed, and the wear and tear that has changed the ship’s worries about a severe accident on board has spread. Consequently, Kuznetsov has often been characterized by accident-prone rather than war-prone issues by the people outside the naval profession.

In 2017, the carrier got a permit to enter the dry dock at Murmansk in order to have a long-overdue renewal. Problems grew worse instead of abating during the repair period. One crisis that happened in 2018 was the sinking of the floating dock, which not only pulled a large crane down the ship’s deck but also caused serious damage as a result of the impact.

Since then, there have been other accidents that plague the progress of the rehabilitation, including multiple fires—some with fatal outcomes—that caused even greater delays. Hardly ever was there cooperation between the time due for the repairs to begin and the work would actually start. Moreover, rumors stating that the labor has gradually come to a halt, and that an internal debate about the rescue of the ship rather than the shutting down of it has simmered, have also appeared.

Keeping Kuznetsov from sinking is no longer a question of engineering skills but one of strategy. The war in Ukraine has been, in several ways, a setback for the Russian navy, consuming budget allocations, depriving the navy of certain resources, and making it difficult for the navy to get some technical parts under sanctions easily.

Notwithstanding that, there are currently some reasons for wondering whether carriers will still have a place in the world of computer-guided missiles and drones. Ex-PacFleet boss Admiral Sergei Avakyants has even gone to the lengths of designating carriers “relics,” i.e., dead systems, and suggesting that future navies ought to be more heavily reliant on unmanned fighters and bombers.

Officially, carriers are still part of the plans for the Northern/Southern Fleet of Russia, but without any ongoing new building project and with the destiny of Kuznetsov gradually increasing in doubt, that goal seems far away. The evolution of the ship’s disasters has become a mirror of the issues that the Russian navy is facing on a bigger scale: rundown infrastructures, shortage of capital, and a steadily weakening production line.

Apart from that, as other big powers are increasing their car supply and going ahead with updating, Russia’s single ship looks getting close to the scrapheap. Should that be the case, Admiral Kuznetsov will not be a memory of a powerful flag, but rather of a warning—a dream compromised by technical bugs, money shortage, and the changes in modern naval warfare.

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is one of the most visually impressive but still controversial Cold War-era fighter jets, widely recognized as such. One of the reasons for the F-104 concept turning out to be a rapid and sharp answer to a very tough question of the time: how could the US intercept Soviet bombers that were fast, and flew at very high altitudes? Born during the time when certain technology, speed, and air-breathing fights were analogous, the F-104 was the ideological icon of the Cold War conflict.

Actually, it was the first production airplane to outrun Mach 2, hence the moniker “the missile with a man riding it.” With an almost disappearing wing and an aerodynamic, needle-like main body, the fighter was made with the utmost priority for velocity.

Equipped with the potent General Electric J79 power plant, it took the feat to the next level. In 1962, a Starfighter got to Mach 2.5 at 92,000 feet, establishing a record that marked a giant step in aviation from the previous decade. But at the same time, these same features that allowed it to achieve such a feat would also mean that it was a tough machine to handle even for the experts.

The miniature wings that carved the air at supersonic speeds provided low lift during takeoff or landing. The pilots had to fly the plane at unusually high approach speeds, thus giving no room for mistakes. At low range, it was lethargic, while the strong engine required careful operation during critical flight phases. Early electronic flight control systems were sometimes problematic, and when in failed, they seldom allowed a second trial. The experience of many pilots was that they had to be very careful when flying the F-104, as they were almost always on the border of victory and disaster.

So it was that the Starfighter soon found itself tagged with a negative reputation like “Widowmaker,” “Flying Coffin,” or “Death Tube” as a consequence of its accidents. The F-104 was an example of how focusing solely on performance could result in the detriment of safety. Nevertheless, despite the dangers it posed, the F-104 was adopted by the air forces from almost all parts of the world, and the main reason for that was the capability of the airplane to achieve speed and altitude.

Coming to the German Federal Republic, newly a member of NATO as of 1955, the Starfighter was chosen as the front-line fighter of the Luftwaffe. The program was hit with several difficulties at the start, including crashes and delivery problems, but with the help provided by Lockheed in terms of technology and special pilot training, the difficulties were overcome one by one.

Safety and accident rate improved through the implementation of the maintenance effort program called Starfighter Utilization Reliability Effort (SURE), and the regularity of the accident rate became evident.

The US made use of the Starfighter from 1958 to 1969. It was on standby duty during the Taiwan Strait crisis and carried out bombing sorties in Vietnam. The jet was first in the Air National Guard and then with NASA, taking advantage of its high speed and altitude capabilities for research and testing, after it was phased out of the U.S military. In addition to operating the plane, 14 countries were permitted to use this aircraft, with the last one to shut down the program being Italy in 2004.

The story of the Starfighter is not a black-and-white one. The one over one side saw the F-104 going to extremes in jet aerodynamics and defying future fighters’ designs, while the other side is the military and engineers that had to deal with the reality that having performance balanced with survivability and training was required because of the high accident rate. Some of these difficult historical issues are, to this day, part of the culture of aviation.

Unbelievably, the Starfighter is not just a common item in a museum. Some of those that have not been retired still perform in airshows and fly as research aircraft. One of the companies that still uses them for testing and other aerospace activities is Starfighters International, which is proof that even after more than fifty years, the design is not only of historical value but also of practical use.

In the long run, the F-104 was not just another Cold War jet; it was the reflection of the pros and cons of pushing technology to the tipping point. The telling of the story of the plane is not just one of wins or losses, but also of the enduring impact it had on how modern fighters were imagined, constructed, and piloted.

The evolution of military combat techniques has been significantly quicker than predicted by the majority of experts. Such a change can be vividly seen in the Ukrainian brave use of drones to penetrate the enemy front. The June 2025 campaign, also known as the Spider’s Web Operation, is nowadays referred to as a milestone in war history.

Certainly, it was not a one-day attack. It took more than a year of meticulous planning to achieve it. The intelligence of Ukraine succeeded in smuggling modular launchers along with over 150 tiny strike drones across the frontier, concealing them in wooden huts or beneath civilian trucks. After getting into the right places at the board with four Russian air bases, the drones were secretly launched, circumventing defenses, and hitting places that were long neglected.

Even the very experienced observers were blown away by the impact’s magnitude. Officials of Ukraine said that the Russian strategic air fleet was almost a third disabled during a single night. Among the downed machines were the aircraft, like the A-50 radar plane and Tu-95 bombers. The bill for the damage was in the hundreds of billions range, but the mission itself was only a fraction of that—a very clear presentation of the potential of asymmetric warfare.

Ukrainian’s advantage over what turned out to be not only courageous but also smart. They transformed standard technology and freely available software, such as ArduPil,ot which were never supposed to be used in war, into tools for the war. Several drones were usthe ing current 4G networks to stay connected, and they didn’t need the vulnerable ground stations.

The operators were able to control them through live video feeds, and in some instances, the AI that was on board the aircraft could detect the parts that were weak in the aircraft–fuel seams, sensors, or pylons–and thus guided the attacks with unbelievable precision. The human skill and machine intelligence were a remarkable showcase for this.

For Russia, it was not just the destruction of the valuable planes that shocked. What was left in the strongest shield—geography—meant almost nothing. Aircraft that had taken decades to design and build, and which could not be quickly replaced, were erased by drones that run on nothing more than lithium batteries. They have a heavy financial burden for repairs and dispersal, but psychological weight may also be there. For the first time, the Russians who lived far from the front understood that the war could still come to them.

The lessons for the rest of the world are quite visible. When confronted with large numbers of cheap, disposable drones, expensive platforms such as stealth jets, heavy armor, and naval carriers are increasingly vulnerable.

Defenses need to dedicate resources to distributing forces, concealing critical assets, fortifying shelters, and deploying advanced countermeasures such as jammers and directed-energy technology. Even the worldwide flow of civilian goods can become a problem because tiny drones and their parts can be hidden within normal shipments, which are almost impossible to monitor, given the amount of trade.

Special operations teams became a very important factor, too. Working with civilian experts, the forces of Ukraine showed how rapidly new tools can be introduced on the battlefield. They showed that constant, small strikes that gradually weaken the enemy’s strength without the necessity for large-scale battles could be done by eliminating air defenses and making Russia move its most valuable resources.

On a larger scale, Operation Spider’s Web can be considered as the first chapter of the new era of wars. The line that separated civilian and military technology was barely distinguishable. The gadgets that were once the hobbyists’ favorites—FPV drones, open-source autopilots, machine learning—are now the very things that have the power to change the doctrines that were the giants of the defense industry’s most tightly guarded secrets. Countries that only depend on prestige platforms and do not incorporate technology quickly enough will be the ones to fall behind.

The concept is quite immediate and straightforward: the combination of agility, resourcefulness, and resilience will be the criteria that determine the future successes of battles. Ukraine has demonstrated beyond doubt that the time for nimble, intelligent, and adaptable solutions is here. The question that remains for the rest of the world is whether or not they will adapt in time.

One of the most intriguing “what-ifs” in the entire field of aeronautical innovations might be the Northrop YF-23, which was known as the “Black Widow II”. Its carbon fiber outline, scorching speed, and state-of-the-art stealth features made it look like a vehicle from near space. Nevertheless, in the 1990s, the YF-23 lost to the YF-22 of Lockheed in the US Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Competition, the latter being the one that was later renamed as F-22 Raptor and put into service.

It wasn’t a decision that was made entirely or primarily based on performance figures. The factors that influenced the decision included a mixture of politics, potential for longevity, pilot’s trust, and aircraft’s agility, which weighed more towards the design of Lockheed.

The YF-23 was once and still is the boldest concept when all things were put down on paper. It was visually disruptive to the world of conventional aircraft. Besides this, it was faster and stealthier. However, the USAF was looking not only for a high performer but also a reliable partner for the next few decades.

F-22 was probably the better balanced option between performance and its less eye-catching radical design with no compromise on stealth, highly-capable avionics, sensor integration, and a modular architecture that allowed gradual technological enhancements. Though the benefits of the Northrop YF-23 are unquestionable, the latter’s arrangement appeared more difficult to adapt to future innovations.

Politics was a big factor, too. The most significant defense programs are rarely decided by the brilliance of the engineering side alone. The partnership with Boeing and General Dynamics gave Lockheed a political influence spread over a large area of the United States, so the work and the money would be distributed over several US states.

On the other hand, Northrop was being examined for the money problems on the B-2 Spirit program, and the history was working against them. The more profound connections of Lockheed and the Air Force helped increase confidence in its proposal.

Just as crucial was the feeling of the pilot. The proof of a good concept was in the test flights, where it had to show its efficiency in reality and not only in theory. Test flights developed better reliability and better breathing for the other forces to visualize a frontline fighter. Test flights gave the YF-22 better reliability and steadiness, making it simpler for the Air Force to perceive it as a frontline fighter. On the other hand, the YF-23 was perfectly capable but lacked the same degree of confidence to the extent that it could be rapidly converted into a combat-ready status.

The aspect of maneuvering was another feature that was used in making the final decision. The fighters’ local fight at that time depended largely on nimble moves, the close moves. Thus, the vectored thrust of F-22 gave it dogfighting capabilities, including rapid climbs, tighter turns, and breathtaking agility at near-stall speeds.

While the speed and stealth of YF-23 were both nozzle-optimized, its lack of agility was one grim trade-off. Its large vertical stabilizers made it very stable, yet it was less than the F-22 in close combat, which the veterans considered as very critical engagements.

At the same time, the Northrop test pilot, Paul Metz, while praising the YF-23 as an exceptional aircraft, nevertheless admitted that his company was having a difficult time promoting it. Conversely, Lockheed did not hesitate to demonstrate its aircraft with accuracy and without reservation, which made a long-lasting impression on the decision-makers. The performance competition was as much about presentation and long-term trust as it was about performance charts.

The YF-23 is just in museums and aviation geeks’ imaginations. Despite the fact that it was not further developed, its futuristic look and the debates that it still generates are arguments in its favor. The issue is still there: has the military chosen wisely by backing the F-22, or was it just going past one that could have revolutionized aerial combat? And the debate keeps on being there, as well as the notoriety of the Black Widow, making it the most talked-about plane among the ones that disappeared from the sky without having their advantage demonstrated.