Do Russian Tanks Suck?

[BDforever]

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

Russia will invade turkey and take over everything

 

[airmarshal]

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.

Are you talking about WW2?

Soviet tanks have evolved since then. But what I read about Soviet equipment is a lot of criticism without constructive and informative comparison. I hop this thread addresses with a constructive and critical debate.

 

[Rotorhead]

Look at modernized Russian tanks. Upgraded T-80s, in particular, are at very least on par with the American Abrams MBT as far as electronics and armor go. Though the Americans can fire a wider variety of rounds both have good auto loaders and Russian tanks have some pretty good reactive armor. I'd call them even. But they certainly don't suck.

 

[Solomon2]

Are you talking about WW2?

Soviet tanks have evolved since then. But what I read about Soviet equipment is a lot of criticism without constructive and informative comparison. I hop this thread addresses with a constructive and critical debate.

Because of the different operational philosophies it isn't so useful to compare a Soviet tank to a Western one. The "heavy" battle tanks of the West were around 60 tons, whereas a Soviet tank of the 1950s-80s was around 40 tons.

Yes, one-on-one a Western tank could outfight a Soviet tank - but that really wasn't the point! For the same investment in dollars that the U.S. put into an M-1 tank and crew the Soviets probably churned out four to six tanks and crews. (Of course, such a huge army also sapped a great deal of manpower from their economy.)

However, the Israeli experience suggests that this advantage wasn't enough: In the 1973 Yom Kippur war on the Syrian front less than fifty Israeli tanks held four hundred Syrian tanks at bay for days. (One young tank commander collapsed after two days of battle in multiple machines; his commanders credited him with destroying over forty tanks. He sells fruit and vegetables now: link.)

 

[Superboy]

Because of the different operational philosophies it isn't so useful to compare a Soviet tank to a Western one. The "heavy" battle tanks of the West were around 60 tons, whereas a Soviet tank of the 1950s-80s was around 40 tons.

Yes, one-on-one a Western tank could outfight a Soviet tank - but that really wasn't the point! For the same investment in dollars that the U.S. put into an M-1 tank and crew the Soviets probably churned out four to six tanks and crews. (Of course, such a huge army also sapped a great deal of manpower from their economy.)

However, the Israeli experience suggests that this advantage wasn't enough: In the 1973 Yom Kippur war on the Syrian front less than fifty Israeli tanks held four hundred Syrian tanks at bay for days. (One young tank commander collapsed after two days of battle in multiple machines; his commanders credited him with destroying over forty tanks. He sells fruit and vegetables now: link.)

Tanks are most effective when operated in junction with helicopters. Ka-52 Alligator is a beast of a chopper.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

This topic has been discussed already to death. From people who list Defense as their hobby to Generals who critiqued Armour doctrines of the Soviets and Americans.

It all ends up in:

1. Crew Performance/ Training
2. Battle Plan
3. Tank Design
4. Combined Arms Support?

Since we're looking at the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, lets focus in on the Syrian Attack on Israeli positions in Golan Heights. Where just 1 Tank Brigade held off 1 Infantry and Tank Division. How? Superior training by the Israeli Army. Israel knew for a fact that if the Golan heights were ever lost, the Israeli Heartland would be the next to go. And that's why Israeli soldiers who held positions along there border either held or conducted a fighting retreat, they stalled as long as they were able to so that Israeli Reservist could arrive.

Israeli Tank crews were drilled continuously with Long Range Shooting. One Israeli tanker, Lt. Zvika Greengold, deceived the Syrians into thinking that they were going up against a large force than just his lone tank. He was even able to deceive Israeli command into thinking he commanded at a company strength.

Military Doctrine is built upon decades of study, years of practice, and good old luck in war. Israel has had countless battles, and 13 wars. It has tested countless battle doctrines and continues to change their tactics each and every day. Israeli Armour was the darling of Israel. Up until '73 when waves of Israeli Tank formations charged into Egyptian Infantry that held their ground and fired anti-tank missiles. Policy changed and Infantry was combined with Armour units. Welcome the Merkava tank.

I know this post is so disorganized.

 

[Superboy]

This topic has been discussed already to death. From people who list Defense as their hobby to Generals who critiqued Armour doctrines of the Soviets and Americans.

It all ends up in:

1. Crew Performance/ Training
2. Battle Plan
3. Tank Design
4. Combined Arms Support?

Since we're looking at the Arab-Israeli war of 1962, lets focus in on the Syrian Attack on Israeli positions in Golan Heights. Where just 1 Tank Brigade held off 1 Infantry and Tank Division. How? Superior training by the Israeli Army. Israel knew for a fact that if the Golan heights were ever lost, the Israeli Heartland would be the next to go. And that's why Israeli soldiers who held positions along there border either held or conducted a fighting retreat, they stalled as long as they were able to so that Israeli Reservist could arrive.

Israeli Tank crews were drilled continuously with Long Range Shooting. One Israeli tanker, Lt. Zvika Greengold, deceived the Syrians into thinking that they were going up against a large force than just his lone tank. He was even able to deceive Israeli command into thinking he commanded at a company strength.

Military Doctrine is built upon decades of study, years of practice, and good old luck in war. Israel has had countless battles, and 13 wars. It has tested countless battle doctrines and continues to change their tactics each and every day. Israeli Armour was the darling of Israel. Up until '73 when waves of Israeli Tank formations charged into Egyptian Infantry that held their ground and fired anti-tank missiles. Policy changed and Infantry was combined with Armour units. Welcome the Merkava tank.

I know this post is so disorganized.

Syria is over 8 times the size of Israel even after Israel annexed most of the Golan. Touch 1 more square inch of Syria and Israel be a gonner.

 

[Hakan]

Syria is over 8 times the size of Israel even after Israel annexed most of the Golan. Touch 1 more square inch of Syria and Israel be a gonner.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Syria is over 8 times the size of Israel even after Israel annexed most of the Golan. Touch 1 more square inch of Syria and Israel be a gonner.

The Israelis have. Just Google Israeli intrusions into Syria.

One young tank commander collapsed after two days of battle in multiple machines; his commanders credited him with destroying over forty tanks. He sells fruit and vegetables now:

Isnt he a Mayor of some Israeli City or is wiki outdated

 

[janon]

... (One young tank commander collapsed after two days of battle in multiple machines; his commanders credited him with destroying over forty tanks. He sells fruit and vegetables now: link.)

Wiki lists his occupation as mayor of Ofakim, not a fruit vendor.

 

[Sam1980]

Google "Desert Storm". That should answer your question. But all in all, without a superior air support armored units are pretty much sitting ducks and that's a fact!

 

[vostok]

Soviet tanks were always created reliable , simple, easily maintainable and cheap. By value against a western tank USSR could for the same money put 4-5 tanks.
However, to say that Soviet tanks would greatly inferior to Western technologically - a lie . That Soviet engineers created the first dynamic armor , autoload system, the ability to launch missiles through the barrel.
A task that was put before the Soviet tanks - breakthrough of the front , the destruction of the fortifications and manpower . The task of the Western tanks - namely fighting Soviet tanks.
However , wait for 1 year. May 9, 2015 will be shown Armata - and it will be the next generation of tanks , a new word .

 

[FNFAL]

Werent the soviets also notorious of selling heavily downgraded "monkey" models? Not sure if the world ever saw a true bred SOVIET T64 against say a M60A3 TTS...

 

[atatwolf]

In one word: yes.

Their ships also sucks bbc.

 

[IND151]

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.

Exactly.

This is why newer tanks like T 99 feature separate box for ammunition, separated from crew.

In the main battle tank variant, the ammunition compartment will be separate from the crew, increasing operational safety while the engine will be more powerful and the armor, main gun andautoloader will be improved.

The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment. It is believed this would eventually lead to the development of a fully robotic tank

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...yT6J6iHhWnL_gaHcmX21z0Q&bvm=bv.64507335,d.bmk

THough I am not sure about second part.

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.

According to sources they were impressed by the performance of their tanks in WWII so much that number of tank divisions remained nearly unchanged till the end of cold war.