Russian Tanks

**Garry** · 05 Jul 06,, 07:45

Well. M1A would need support of engineers to advance fast. When bridges are blow up T-62 derivatives can cross the water ostacles underwater (I don't know may be M1A can as well, pls correct me here). Both T-80 and T-90 can cross up to 5 meters depth with snorkel).

Mobility was the key for Russian tank designers. They were planning to advance deep into the Western Europe fast enough before NATO brings support troops and counterattacks. Mobility of tank forces was a key here. Soviet tank armies were supposed to advance hundred of killometers into the breaches made by infantry armies and take rear fortified positions before they are filled with enemy forces. Just like it happened in Bagration operation when troops took fortified positions before enemy filled them 200km behind the front line.

While western tanks are good for Tank To Tank they are not good to fight infantry and enemy's fortified fire points. I read that only now they are brining anti-infantry rounds to main gun of M1A.... as it turned well needed in Falujah.

M1A is good in tank to a tank but please correct me if I am wrong - M1A would require a lot of support of logistics and engineering resources to break through few hundred km in a fast attack when communication lines are not fast to follow.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Jul 06,, 07:52

Originally Posted by Garry

Well. M1A would need support of engineers to advance fast. When bridges are blow up T-62 derivatives can cross the water ostacles underwater (I don't know may be M1A can as well, pls correct me here). T-80 up to 2 (or 3m) meters depth and T-90 something like 5 meters.

You ever notice that the tests were never performed with running rivers? Mud stops them cold.

Originally Posted by Garry

Mobility was the key for Russian tank designers. They were planning to advance deep into the Western Europe fast enough before NATO brings support troops and counterattacks.

4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group here, VII Corps' strategic reserves. Yeah, I knew what you were going to do. However, let's not forget that you expected those tanks to die and let the T-55s and even T-34s in my day to do the running around.

Originally Posted by Garry

Mobility of tank forces was a key here. Soviet tank armies were supposed to advance hundred of killometers into the breaches made by infantry armies and take rear fortified positions before they are filled with enemy forces.

No, I think you're missing the big key - nukes. Over 130 tac nukes were to be used in the openning stages of the war. This has been confirmed by generals from the former Warsaw Pact in NATO's Parallel History Project where Cold Warriors sit down and discuss what actually went on.

Originally Posted by Garry

M1A is good in tank to a tank but please correct me if I am wrong - M1A would require a lot of support of logistics and engineering resources to break through few hundred km in a fast attack when communication lines are not fast to follow.

What do you call 100 miles in 72 hours?

**Garry** · 05 Jul 06,, 07:57

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

What do you call 100 miles in 72 hours?

well that is quite fast. Sorry don't have much arguments to answer other posts. At the end I was just private armed with a rifle and a spade

**gunnut** · 05 Jul 06,, 08:09

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

That's not the tank's job. That's my job. The reason why the Soviets went through Afghanistan with all their tanks is not because of the lighter tanks. It's because you had damned good engineers. Given what I saw of the Afghanistan Invasion, I would even say better than mine.

Wow, that's quite a compliment. I never knew Soviet engineers were that good. Most popular publications never talk about engineers.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Jul 06,, 14:33

Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - Mine Warefare and Counterinsurgency: The Russian View

Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - Soviet Combat Engineers in Afghanistan

**kNikS** · 05 Jul 06,, 18:39

Sir, I’ve red the article about Leopards in Kosovo. Talking about mobility, it seems to be that there is a great difference in performance between Leopard and, for this matter, Challenger 2.

What is interesting is that weight of Challenger exceeded 80t, which means that its ground pressure is above 1.15kg/cm2, possibly even 1.2kg/cm2. For comparison, Leopard weighted 42.5t with ground pressure of 0.88g/cm2, uparmored – 47t and 1kg/cm2. Supposed opponent, M-84A, weighted 42t with ground pressure 0.81kg/cm2. Article states that Challengers were simply parked and held as contingency force.

Also, I have an article somewhere (unfortunately on paper and in Serbian, by one Serbian military analyst) that states that Challengers 1 (72t, 1.14kg/cm2) had similar issues in Bosnia, with significant part of vehicles halted.

**Archer** · 05 Jul 06,, 19:55

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Only if you're thinking defence and keeping your LoCs intact while you retreat. Your own bridges will have to support your own tanks. Otherwise, bridges should not count in any attack plan into a hostile country. You should count on them being blown up as a delaying tactic.

Fair point sir. But additionally, presumably, bridging equipment for <50 ton equipment would be lighter and cheaper than that rated for 60 tons and more. The former would count when deploying in rough terrain as well. Am told that in South Asia for instance, the Thar desert has more "loose sand" vs the packed type in Iraq, over significant swathes of terrain.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Jul 06,, 21:19

Originally Posted by Archer

Fair point sir. But additionally, presumably, bridging equipment for <50 ton equipment would be lighter and cheaper than that rated for 60 tons and more. T

Again, that's my job, not the tanks. And I'm not carrying the 60 tons. The truck is.

Originally Posted by Archer

he former would count when deploying in rough terrain as well. Am told that in South Asia for instance, the Thar desert has more "loose sand" vs the packed type in Iraq, over significant swathes of terrain.

The more I've read about the ARJUN/T-90 trials, the more I'm convinced the InA has it out for the ARJUN. The simple truth is that you've got way better T-90 drivers than you do ARJUN drivers.

**TopHatter** · 05 Jul 06,, 21:53

Originally Posted by gunnut

Wow, that's quite a compliment. I never knew Soviet engineers were that good.

Yep, the Germans learned the hard way about the Soviet engineer.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Most popular publications never talk about engineers.

Of course not. What's so sexy about logistics and such?

**Samovar** · 19 Jul 06,, 14:19

The Russian tanks are maintanable in servere severity conditions. American tanks are comfortable, but they are nothing without civilized service.

**Wardogg1990** · 13 Aug 06,, 14:37

I personaly like the T-series of Soviet armour.

I believe that the T-80 / T-90 are superb tanks and could mach up well with other western tanks.

I like there design, the low profile, the circular turret etc,
the T-80 sounds like it has a jet engine!!(Not loud though).

**Bill** · 13 Aug 06,, 22:30

Originally Posted by Wardogg1990

I personaly like the T-series of Soviet armour.

So do Abrams crews.

American track commander manning M-2 BMG checks out burning T-72 during 2nd invasion of Iraq

**Itchy Finger** · 22 Aug 06,, 05:46

**Bill** · 22 Aug 06,, 06:03

Want to have a competition of the numbers of pix of DIFFERENT burnt out tanks we can post, US vs Russian?

No, i didn't think so...

LOL, wow...a 1000lb IED killed an Abrams. What junk...

Here Comrade, from me to you with love:

Burning Iraqi T-72

**Itchy Finger** · 22 Aug 06,, 06:08

2 M21Sniper
Ow... you will show again 1970s produced iraqi T-72s? Or 1950-60s T-62s and T-55s? Against 1985-90 produced M1s? You are pathetic...

btw, americans used the same for left iraqi's T-72s - blow them with C4 and show as a result of their "good work", as like they "shoot them"