Id like to say that i feel Soviet armor has not been given it's due.The T-54,T-55,T72 were all really great tanks they were the victims of the same low standards the Soviets built all their conventional weapons,however as i said in another thread their desings were flawless presenting the smallest possible target.Look at America's M-60A1 how tall it was and all the shot traps in it's bulky turret,the M-60A1 was a great tank
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Russian Tanks
Collapse
X
-
B4 posting any more, i suggest u read this http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1531 & then continue there.Hala Madrid!!
-
I love Soviet/Russian armor too, but let's be real. Russian tanks are made with different priorities, for different users and different purposes than western ones. But any tank will do the job as long as you have it, maintain it, employ it and operate it properly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HindleId like to say that i feel Soviet armor has not been given it's due.The T-54,T-55,T72 were all really great tanks they were the victims of the same low standards the Soviets built all their conventional weapons,however as i said in another thread their desings were flawless presenting the smallest possible target.Look at America's M-60A1 how tall it was and all the shot traps in it's bulky turret,the M-60A1 was a great tank
That's its due.
Which is not an insult, because that's what it was designed for.
-dale
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalemSoviet armor is cheap and light enough to push off the road after its turret gets frying-panned across the road.
That's its due.
Which is not an insult, because that's what it was designed for.
-dale
Comment
-
Originally posted by kNikSActually, that's what Iraqi T-72 are designed for.
Small size, low HP:weight ratio, inaccurate gun, crappy autoloader - these are all common design elements in all Soviet/Russian armor.
-dale
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalemRight, all the other T-72s, T-55s, T-64s, T-80s, T-100000000s, and all the rest are different somehow.
Originally posted by dalemSmall size, low HP:weight ratio, inaccurate gun, crappy autoloader - these are all common design elements in all Soviet/Russian armor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kNikSWell, yes. Apart it's an oldest export version it also lacked ERA, "M" series of guns with new ammo etc etc and the most important - it lacked users.
Small size is good, many users install more powerfull engine, "M" series of guns is hardly inaccurate, there's nothing wrong with autoloader... We would have to agree that we disagree.
These are facts.
Now, none of that changes the fact that Soviet/Russian tanks are still tanks, and quite serviceable ones at that, but they have serious design flaws that keep them out of the "A" league of the current crop. But note that if one pokes its gun tube up MY back alley, I'm going to be running away, not arguing about ERA or a poor rate of fire. ;)
It's all relative. And as you allude to above, crew training is a huge factor as well.
-dale
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalemBut note that if one pokes its gun tube up MY back alley, I'm going to be running away, not arguing about ERA or a poor rate of fire. ;)
-dale
If YOU see a Russian designed tank pointing up your alley, i should hope you'd charge that fukker with molotov in hand and account yourself like a proper american patriot.
Live or die, the rest of us will remember you fondly for it. ;)
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalemFacts are facts. Soviet/Russian tank designs have never performed as well as their Western counterparts in any engagement.
Originally posted by dalemSoviet/Russian mechanical tolerances are much rougher than their Western counterparts and their gun and targeting systems suffer because of it.
[QUOTE=dalem]The autoloader reduces the rate of fire.[/qute] Shortest possible version - race isn't only between loader and autoloader. It's between gun stabilization, gunner's skill etc etc. Practical rate of fire is thing that you count.
Originally posted by dalemNow, none of that changes the fact that Soviet/Russian tanks are still tanks, and quite serviceable ones at that, but they have serious design flaws that keep them out of the "A" league of the current crop[/b].
Originally posted by dalemBut note that if one pokes its gun tube up MY back alley, I'm going to be running away, not arguing about ERA or a poor rate of fire. ;)
It's all relative.
Originally posted by dalemAnd as you allude to above, crew training is a huge factor as well.
-dale
Now, do we have a consesus? ;)
Comment
-
Originally posted by M21SniperThat's the worst thing to do. A tanks null zone is right up close to it.
If YOU see a Russian designed tank pointing up your alley, i should hope you'd charge that fukker with molotov in hand and account yourself like a proper american patriot.
Live or die, the rest of us will remember you fondly for it. ;)Last edited by kNikS; 13 May 06,, 22:52.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kNikSI agree. But dale, fcuk molotov - take your airbrush and spray its optics with some dark enamel - preferably "Humbrol". ;)
What an ugly beast of an AFV it is, too.
-dale
Comment
-
Originally posted by kNikSNow, do we have a consesus? ;)
And it's truly why I try to stay out of all the "the best X" threads. "Best" at what? For what? For whom? Etc.
-dale
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalemOh, I don't think we were ever very far apart on this topic. My initial response was to some guy above who claimed "ultimate design" status or something.
And it's truly why I try to stay out of all the "the best X" threads. "Best" at what? For what? For whom? Etc.
-dale
Comment
-
Soviet tanks are only substandard when comparing to the M1A2, which was designed and evolved over the years to be the best killer of Soviet tanks ever made.
By all other measures, with the exceptions of Challenger 2 and Leopard 2, Soviet tanks are very competitive."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
Comment