What's new

Do Russian Tanks Suck?

Hakan

RETIRED INTL MOD
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
6,274
Reaction score
39
Country
Turkey
Location
Canada
Its very common to hear people say that Russian tanks just plain suck when compared to western tanks. Are these claims 100% true? Im looking for a good debate backed by historical facts and various specifications of tanks.


T55
800px-T-55_schematic.png


During the 1970 Jordanian Civil war, Syrian tanks inflicted heavy losses on Jordanian Centurions. In one case, a squadron of T-55s stopped the advance of a large Jordanian column, with 19 Centurions destroyed and up to 10 Syrian T-55s lost in the battle.[

The tank was heavily used during the Iran–Iraq War of 1980-88. T-54/55 participated in the biggest tank battle of the war in early 1981. Iran lost 200 Chieftain tank and M60A1 tanks in battle. In return, Iraq lost 50 T-55 and T-62 tanks.[21]

T-62
t55_1.jpg

During the Yom Kippur war, the T-62 was an effective adversary for Israeli Patton and Centurion main battle tanks armed with 105 mm tank guns. The T-62 had an advantage in its better night-fighting capability, but Syrian losses were heavy

The Iraqi T-62s performed well against opposing Iranian tanks such as M48s, M60A1s and Chieftains in the Iran-Iraq war. Iraqi T-62 participated in the biggest tank battle of the war in early 1981. Iran has lost 200 Chieftain and M60A1 tanks during battle. In return, Iraq has lost 50 T-62 tanks. The remaining Iranian armor, turned about and withdrew.

In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[24] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armoured Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[25]After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world." Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. Only one Syrian T-72 probably was knocked out by Israeli tank fire.[24]

Iraqi T-72 had great success in the battle for Basraand the last stages of the war. 105mm M68 tank guns and TOW missiles proved absolutely ineffective against armor of T-72.[26][27] 60 T-72 tanks were lost during the eight years of war.[28][29] According to Iranians and Iraqis T-72 was the most feared tank of the Iran-Iraq War.[30][31]

T-80
download


They were first used during the First Chechen War. This first real combat experience for T-80 MBTs was unsuccessful, as the tanks were used for capturing cities, a task for which they were not very well suited. The biggest tank losses were suffered during the ill-fated assault on the city of Grozny. The forces selected to capture Grozny were not prepared for such an operation, while the city was defended by, among others, veterans of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The T-80 tanks used in this operation either did not have reactive armour (T-80B) or they were not fitted before the start of the operation (T-80BV), and the T-80 crews lacked sufficient training before the war.

The inexperienced crews had no knowledge of the layout of the city, while the tanks were attacked by RPG teams hidden in cellars and on top of high buildings. The anti-tank fire was directed at the least armoured points of the vehicles. Each destroyed tank received from three to six hits, and each tank was fired at by six or seven rocket-propelled grenades. A number of vehicles exploded when the autoloader, with vertically placed rounds, was hit: in theory it should have been protected by the road wheel, but, when the tanks got hit on their side armour, the ready-to-use ammunition exploded. Out of all armored vehicles that entered Grozny, 225 were destroyed in the first month alone, representing 10.23% of all the tanks committed to the campaign.[25] The T-80 performed so poorly that General-Lieutenant A. Galkin, the head of the Armor Directorate, convinced the Minister of Defence after the conflict to never again procure tanks with gas-turbine engines.[26] After that, T-80 MBTs were never again used to capture cities, and, instead, they supported infantry squads from a safe distance. Defenders of the T-80 point out that the T-72 performed just as badly in urban fighting in Grozny as the T-80 and that there were two mitigating factors: after the breakup of the Soviet Union, poor funding meant no training for new Russian tank crews, and the tank force entering the city had no infantry support, which is considered to be suicidal by many major military strategists of armored warfare.[24]

@Manticore @vostok @500 @fatman17 @DESERT FIGHTER
 
Last edited:
The problem with Soviet/Russian equipments is mostly not the problem with the equipment itself, but the operator.A poorly trained army will always perform poorly, no matter what equipment or gears they have.War is not exactly a video game.

India has performed well in times of war with Russian equipments.The Egyptians and Syrians made good use of Soviet SAMs and the anti-tank wire guided missiles during Yom-Kippur war with the Israelis, Kalashnikov is by far the most used gun in the World, the North Vietnamese Airforce and at later times the Indian Airforce performed well with the Soviet Migs.Lots of such instances can be found.
In my opinion, the problem is not with the equipment, but with the level of training and professionalism.
 
Let's see first overhang gun - russia.
First composite armour-russia.
First sloped armour concept -russia.
First true mbt-russia.So no.
Autoloader concept-russia.

Main problem with soviet designs have been exposed ammunition cache and poor fire control system.Second one is electronics industry problem,not a tank design flaw.
 
Let's see first overhang gun - russia.
First composite armour-russia.
First sloped armour concept -russia.
First true mbt-russia.So no.
Autoloader concept-russia.

Main problem with soviet designs have been exposed ammunition cache and poor fire control system.Second one is electronics industry problem,not a tank design flaw.

The Soviet doctrine " The more the merrier" had little regard for cheap conscripts. They had enough armor to invade the world. But of what use? Who were they prepping this armor for? While US had less than a third of the armor.

This principle produced flawed products and great products, AK 47.
 
The Soviet doctrine " The more the merrier" had little regard for cheap conscripts. They had enough armor to invade the world. But of what use? Who were they prepping this armor for? While US had less than a third of the armor.

This principle produced flawed products and great products, AK 47.

True,but no system produces flawless products consistently.Soviet doctrine suited russian military's nature at that time.
 
The problem is the ammo is stored inside the crew compartment.
If they get hit bad things happen.

T-72 vs TOW

Abrams tank ammunition explosion

Close up of blast door separating from the crew compartment from the ammunition.
 
Last edited:
True,but no system produces flawless products consistently.Soviet doctrine suited russian military's nature at that time.

Flawed doctrine, plus they suffered from paranoia much more than the US did. This seemed to emerge from the realization that communism would fail if they dont grip it tightly. No matter what they did, freedom which is what democracy brings and their lack of hindsight broke them apart. Have to admire US's gameplan all throughout.

I was reading about a foreign minister or an ambassador to Canada told his counter part how communism would fail. He was amazed at the choices of food available at a supermarket. This little luxury we take for granted was an unknown concept in the communist Russia.

Thus the domino effect.
 
The Soviet doctrine " The more the merrier" had little regard for cheap conscripts. They had enough armor to invade the world. But of what use? Who were they prepping this armor for?
Soviet armor was designed for the invasion of Western Europe. Soviet armor had little side and rear armor since the machines were meant to advance together, side-by side, across the fields of Western Germany. The range of the armor was many hundreds of kilometers so the Soviets could leap from the Iron Curtain to the Rhine without refueling.

Since the emphasis was on mass-movement rather than maneuverability only a minority of tanks in a division had to be fully functional and only of few of the crews had to be really expert in their machines. The tank divisions and armies were to thrust their way through enemy defenses while the motor-infantry divisions were to occupy the conquered civilian populations. Not so much education or training was needed so conscripts were judged adequate to the task.
 
i dont really care, the only thing that matters is that T90MS is on par with any modern tank and russia already developing a new model
 
USA and Russia have very far different doctrines in terms if armored warfare. Russian Army generally relies on massive numbers with significant firepower. While US relies on smart, advanced units with air support generally. We (Turks), having a NATO integrated armed force, find them poorly developed, which is true. But with an army that Russia has, and the armor they have, they are high speed sh.it, but not comperable with an advanced Western tank for sure (Leopard 2A6/2A7/2NG, Challenger 2, Altay, Merkava IV, K2 Black Panther, Type 10..etc) maybe an exception for French AMX.
 
USA and Russia have very far different doctrines in terms if armored warfare. Russian Army generally relies on massive numbers with significant firepower. While US relies on smart, advanced units with air support generally. We (Turks), having a NATO integrated armed force, find them poorly developed, which is true. But with an army that Russia has, and the armor they have, they are high speed sh.it, but not comperable with an advanced Western tank for sure (Leopard 2A6/2A7/2NG, Challenger 2, Altay, Merkava IV, K2 Black Panther, Type 10..etc) maybe an exception for French AMX.
IIRC correctly CHallenger 2 is that fasted in the field. And Leo 2 as well as M1 do over 70km/h on road.
 
IIRC correctly CHallenger 2 is that fasted in the field. And Leo 2 as well as M1 do over 70km/h on road.

Bro that term was not regarding speed. I meant they were pretty capable units when I said high speed :lol:
 

Back
Top Bottom