Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 236

Thread: Russian Tanks

  1. #91
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,711
    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.
    Last edited by Garry; 05 Jul 06, at 07:59.

  2. #92
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

  3. #93
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote 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

  4. #94
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,741
    Quote 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.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #95

  6. #96
    Senior Contributor kNikS's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Sep 05
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    762
    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.
    For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death

  7. #97
    Senior Contributor Archer's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Oct 03
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote 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.
    Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

    My bow is stretched for its task

  8. #98
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  9. #99
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    14,670
    Quote 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    Most popular publications never talk about engineers.
    Of course not. What's so sexy about logistics and such?

  10. #100
    New Member
    Join Date
    19 Jul 06
    Posts
    8
    The Russian tanks are maintanable in servere severity conditions. American tanks are comfortable, but they are nothing without civilized service.

  11. #101
    New Member Wardogg1990's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Apr 06
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14
    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).
    A Hundred Elephants can destroy the outer walls of a fortress, but one diseased rat can kill all those inside ~ Book of Cataclysm

  12. #102
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Quote 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

  13. #103
    New Member
    Join Date
    22 Aug 06
    Posts
    14

    Like iraqi's like M1...

    Attached Images Attached Images  

  14. #104
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    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
    Last edited by Bill; 22 Aug 06, at 06:07.

  15. #105
    New Member
    Join Date
    22 Aug 06
    Posts
    14
    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"
    Attached Images Attached Images  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Analysis: Chechnya
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29 Jul 08,, 00:30
  2. Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments
    By oneman28 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 23 Jun 08,, 06:49
  3. Russian facism
    By Alamgir in forum International Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23 Apr 08,, 21:16
  4. T-90 (india's Version) Vs. T-98 China, Things On Merkava
    By Kontakt Era in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 22 Mar 05,, 18:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •