Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Tanks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Russian Tanks

    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

  • #2
    B4 posting any more, i suggest u read this http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1531 & then continue there.
    Hala Madrid!!

    Comment


    • #3
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hindle
        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
        Soviet 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


        • #5
          Originally posted by dalem
          Soviet 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
          Actually, that's what Iraqi T-72 are designed for.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kNikS
            Actually, that's what Iraqi T-72 are designed for.
            Right, all the other T-72s, T-55s, T-64s, T-80s, T-100000000s, and all the rest are different somehow.

            Small size, low HP:weight ratio, inaccurate gun, crappy autoloader - these are all common design elements in all Soviet/Russian armor.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dalem
              Right, all the other T-72s, T-55s, T-64s, T-80s, T-100000000s, and all the rest are different somehow.
              Well, 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.

              Originally posted by dalem
              Small size, low HP:weight ratio, inaccurate gun, crappy autoloader - these are all common design elements in all Soviet/Russian armor.
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kNikS
                Well, 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.
                Facts are facts. Soviet/Russian tank designs have never performed as well as their Western counterparts in any engagement. Soviet/Russian mechanical tolerances are much rougher than their Western counterparts and their gun and targeting systems suffer because of it. The autoloader reduces the rate of fire.

                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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dalem
                  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. ;)

                  -dale
                  That'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. ;)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dalem
                    Facts are facts. Soviet/Russian tank designs have never performed as well as their Western counterparts in any engagement.
                    Yes, but it's also a fact that they were almost always used against generation or two newer western counterparts and that users were way back regarding their competence (in all aspects). Exceptions are N. Vietnamese and other time when they were used against its generational equivalent is against Israelis, and I do have great respect for those guys.

                    Originally posted by dalem
                    Soviet/Russian mechanical tolerances are much rougher than their Western counterparts and their gun and targeting systems suffer because of it.
                    Yes, but that gap is smaller now simply because Russians imported western machines. Besides, (apart that thier priority was cavalry role) they always wanted to confront you with quantity, not quality. Talking about quality, T-54, for example, was an exelent tank for it's time and in adittion to that affordable in large numbers.

                    [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 dalem
                    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[/b].
                    Mostly agree. As I said as long as you have a tank (and know how to use it) it will serve it's purpose. One thing - not necesserily design flaws but Soviet understanding of average time that tank would spend in nuclear battlefield in Europe (where crew survivability wasn't in top 5). That puts them in "A" league but not infront current western counterparts.

                    Originally posted by dalem
                    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.
                    That's exactly the thing I'm saying all the time. You need a tank, as long as itsn't some WWII junk it will work something. Hell, we and Croats even efectively used T-34/85 during last war.
                    Originally posted by dalem
                    And as you allude to above, crew training is a huge factor as well.

                    -dale
                    Exactly. We (Serbs, Croats, Slovenians), Finns and Indians are good examples of succesful use of T-series. That applies to my first post in this thread.


                    Now, do we have a consesus? ;)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by M21Sniper
                      That'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. ;)
                      I agree. But dale, fcuk molotov - take your airbrush and spray its optics with some dark enamel - preferably "Humbrol". ;)
                      Last edited by kNikS; 13 May 06,, 22:52.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kNikS
                        I agree. But dale, fcuk molotov - take your airbrush and spray its optics with some dark enamel - preferably "Humbrol". ;)
                        Nahh, it's Testors Model Master for me all the way. ;) And I'm working on an M10 right now - just finished puttying up some seams on the running gear.

                        What an ugly beast of an AFV it is, too.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kNikS
                          Now, do we have a consesus? ;)
                          Oh, 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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dalem
                            Oh, 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
                            Yes, that's the reason why I'm avoiding it too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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

                              Working...
                              X