In the Cold War era, Russian tanks had no trouble rolling into places like Czechoslovakia and Hungary and those areas. Just cruise down the highway like elephants.
In the Ukraine Russian tanks are rolling in, and getting destroyed.
Now the Russians, being the block heads that they are, will gradually reduce Ukraine to rubble and back to the stone age.
- VitaMan
- 04-13-2022, 10:46 AM
- JohnnyGleet
- 04-13-2022, 11:13 AM
And reduce the perceived threat from their SW border as well as sending a message to countries like Finland not to get too cozy with NATO.
Now the Russians, being the block heads that they are, will gradually reduce Ukraine to rubble and back to the stone age. Originally Posted by VitaMan
This along with controlling the gas fields and the Dnipro as well as having access to the Black Sea.
Dumbasses.
The biggest arms producing nations are the US, Russia, Germany and France with China rising through the pack.
Ukraine make nice infomercial, no ?
- texassapper
- 04-13-2022, 11:18 AM
In the Cold War era, Russian tanks had no trouble rolling into places like Czechoslovakia and Hungary and those areas. Just cruise down the highway like elephants.Did you have a point to make? MBT's obsolete? MBT losses result in artillery barrages?
In the Ukraine Russian tanks are rolling in, and getting destroyed.
Now the Russians, being the block heads that they are, will gradually reduce Ukraine to rubble and back to the stone age. Originally Posted by VitaMan
The Russians STILL have not operationally used their artillery per their standard doctrine. They are intentionally trying to limit civilian casualties. If you understood anything other than what you just read on facebook you'd understand.
*Not a Putin supporter. I'm neutral... don't care which side wins, I'd just rather not lose a single American life or spend a red cent in defending either side.
- VitaMan
- 04-13-2022, 05:07 PM
There is no point. Only discussions.
- JohnnyGleet
- 04-13-2022, 06:45 PM
*Not a Putin supporter. I'm neutral... don't care which side wins, I'd just rather not lose a single American life or spend a red cent in defending either side. Originally Posted by texassapperI agree . I also don't want to buy into lies from either side.
It's a domestic squabble with a long complicated history.
Let them sort it out.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 04-13-2022, 06:48 PM
the answer is that russkie tanks aren't very good. they have over 12,000 tanks but most are either the T-72 and T-80 which are based on late 1960's design. in the Iraq war US amour totally outclassed these Soviet era tanks as did the British Challenger 2. The M1A2 Abrams is the foremost tank in the world today. there are several tanks that compare in part because the Abrams came from a design exercise of the US, Britain and Germany in the late 70's so it's no surprise that both the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are similar to the Abrams, they all evolved from the same design.
the Russkies do have a new MBT the T-14 Armada but it's untested in battle and they don't have many of them.
the vast majority of Russian Armor are updated T-72/80/90 designs all of which are dated to the soviet era. two of the top 5 worst tanks are Russian that are still the mainstay of Russian army.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/5...160400792.html
Kyle Mizokami
Tue, April 12, 2022, 11:04 AM
Photo credit: Laski Diffusion - Getty Images
The armies of the world operate a grand total of 73,000 tanks of all types. Tank warfare is highly competitive, and bad tanks are quickly destroyed in wartime. Many of the “worst” tanks are badly designed or built, their flaws hidden for decades before finally being revealed in actual combat. Others, unfairly or not, are simply good tanks that have soldiered on for too long.
T-34/85 (North Korea)
Photo credit: John van Hasselt - Corbis - Getty Images
One of the most iconic tanks of the Second World War was the Soviet T-34 medium tank. The T-34, conceived in great secrecy in Stalinist Russia, featured a powerful 76.2-millimeter main gun, good armor protection, and good cross-country mobility. By 1945, the tank— armed with a heavier 85-millimeter gun and improved armor, now dubbed the T-34/85—was spearheading the Russian Army’s drive on Berlin.
Nearly 80 years later, the North Korean People’s Army’s thrifty reserve forces still operate T-34/85 tanks. They’ve been overhauled and fitted with new running gear and slat armor designed to pre-detonate the warheads of anti-tank missiles. Despite these modest improvements, the lifetime of a T-34/85 in a match against South Korean K-2 tanks and American M1A2 tanks would be measured in seconds, depending on how long it took its adversaries to load their guns.
Arjun (India)
Photo credit: Hindustan Times - Getty Images
India’s first indigenous tank, the Arjun, had one of the longest development periods of any armored vehicle in recent history. The Arjun main battle tank was projected to enter service in 1985. Instead, the tank—named after one of India’s legendary warriors—blew deadline after deadline and entered service in 2009, a remarkable 37 years after the decision was first made to build it.
India’s defense establishment was not ready to build a modern main battle tank, and the Arjun was updated several times during the design process. The main gun was upgraded from a 105-millimeter to 120-millimeter gun, while the armor was increased to deal with advances in anti-tank weapons. Engineers also had to accommodate new technologies, including GPS navigation, laser warning receivers, and reactive armor. As a result of all these changes, Arjun’s weight ballooned from 40 tons to 62 tons, making what would have been a nimble tank one of the more sluggish tanks on the modern battlefield.
The Arjun Mk.1 entered service with the Indian Army in 2009, but the service was reluctant to buy what had become known as a mechanically-unreliable tank. The army was forced to buy 124 Arjun Mk. 1s, with the promise that future Mk.1A Arjuns would correct the original tank’s glaring flaws. The Arjun Mk.1 will probably serve for 20 years or less, considerably less time than it actually took to develop the tank.
T-72 (Russia)
Photo credit: SOPA Images - Getty Images
In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union sought to develop a tank that would be superior to existing NATO tanks in every way. The tank, later known as the T-72, would mount the powerful 125-millimeter 2A46M main gun, incorporate superior armored protection, have a low profile, and prowl the battlefield at high speeds. Soviet factories and licensees churned out 17,700 T-72s, and the tank was a major threat to the armies of NATO. These tanks still serve today in the Russian Army as the T-72B and T-72B3 main battle tanks.
Although a powerful tank on paper, the T-72 has serious problems. The main gun is mediocre by today’s standards, and the tank suffers from a lack of modern ammunition. The T-72’s low profile, while useful in avoiding detection, means the main gun cannot be elevated to engage enemies in multi-story buildings. Tanks such as the T-72B and -B3 have not received major armor upgrades, instead settling for the addition of blocks of reactive armor. Even today, most of the Russian Army’s T-72 tanks lack third-generation night vision sighting systems.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that the tank stores its main gun ammunition among the crew. A penetration of the tank’s main armor will often detonate the ammo, killing the crew before they have the opportunity to escape. Not only does this destroy the tank, it also wipes out an entire trained tank crew.
The T-72’s problems first came to light in the 1991 Gulf War, as Iraqi tanks demonstrated a tendency to violently explode in combat. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine has seen Russia lose 471 tanks in just six weeks, including 264 T-72s. Images of T-72s, their turrets blown off their hulls by ammunition explosions, are a common sight. A major problem is the use of anti-tank weapons with top attack capabilities, including the United Kingdom’s NLAW rocket and the American Javelin missile, which can circumvent the T-72’s main armor by firing a shaped charge into the top of a tank.
T-80 (Russia)
Photo credit: OLGA MALTSEVA - Getty Images
The T-80 is another holdover from the Soviet Union and, like the T-72, is serving beyond its expiration date. The T-80 and the T-72 are similar in armament, protection, and appearance, but with one key difference under the hood: the T-80 uses a gasoline-powered turbine engine instead of a diesel engine like the rest of the Russian Army’s tanks. This makes the T-80 more responsive on the battlefield and better in cold temperatures than a diesel-powered tank.
Despite these advantages, the T-80 has all the problems of the T-72 ... and then some. The T-80’s 1,250-horsepower GTD-1250 gas turbine engine is less reliable than the diesel engine that runs the T-72. It also uses more fuel and forces the Russian Army to keep two fuel supplies—gasoline and diesel—flowing to frontline units. This is a problematic combination for a Russian Army not known for attention to logistics and maintenance issues.
The T-80’s problems may have contributed to the overall failure of the Russian Ground Forces to achieve its objectives. Of 57 T-80U tanks lost by the Russian Army in Ukraine, only 15 were destroyed. The other 42 tanks were abandoned or captured, suggesting that the vehicles ran out of fuel or encountered mechanical problems. Of 21 slightly improved T-80BVM tanks, only six were destroyed, and the remaining 15 were either abandoned or captured.
the Russkies do have a new MBT the T-14 Armada but it's untested in battle and they don't have many of them.
the vast majority of Russian Armor are updated T-72/80/90 designs all of which are dated to the soviet era. two of the top 5 worst tanks are Russian that are still the mainstay of Russian army.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/5...160400792.html
Kyle Mizokami
Tue, April 12, 2022, 11:04 AM
Photo credit: Laski Diffusion - Getty Images
- Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put a new focus on mechanized land warfare.
- In a world where there’s no room for second place, most tanks are actually quite good.
- Some tanks, however, are either poorly designed, poorly built, or should have headed to the scrap heap a long time ago.
The armies of the world operate a grand total of 73,000 tanks of all types. Tank warfare is highly competitive, and bad tanks are quickly destroyed in wartime. Many of the “worst” tanks are badly designed or built, their flaws hidden for decades before finally being revealed in actual combat. Others, unfairly or not, are simply good tanks that have soldiered on for too long.
T-34/85 (North Korea)
Photo credit: John van Hasselt - Corbis - Getty Images
One of the most iconic tanks of the Second World War was the Soviet T-34 medium tank. The T-34, conceived in great secrecy in Stalinist Russia, featured a powerful 76.2-millimeter main gun, good armor protection, and good cross-country mobility. By 1945, the tank— armed with a heavier 85-millimeter gun and improved armor, now dubbed the T-34/85—was spearheading the Russian Army’s drive on Berlin.
Nearly 80 years later, the North Korean People’s Army’s thrifty reserve forces still operate T-34/85 tanks. They’ve been overhauled and fitted with new running gear and slat armor designed to pre-detonate the warheads of anti-tank missiles. Despite these modest improvements, the lifetime of a T-34/85 in a match against South Korean K-2 tanks and American M1A2 tanks would be measured in seconds, depending on how long it took its adversaries to load their guns.
Arjun (India)
Photo credit: Hindustan Times - Getty Images
India’s first indigenous tank, the Arjun, had one of the longest development periods of any armored vehicle in recent history. The Arjun main battle tank was projected to enter service in 1985. Instead, the tank—named after one of India’s legendary warriors—blew deadline after deadline and entered service in 2009, a remarkable 37 years after the decision was first made to build it.
India’s defense establishment was not ready to build a modern main battle tank, and the Arjun was updated several times during the design process. The main gun was upgraded from a 105-millimeter to 120-millimeter gun, while the armor was increased to deal with advances in anti-tank weapons. Engineers also had to accommodate new technologies, including GPS navigation, laser warning receivers, and reactive armor. As a result of all these changes, Arjun’s weight ballooned from 40 tons to 62 tons, making what would have been a nimble tank one of the more sluggish tanks on the modern battlefield.
The Arjun Mk.1 entered service with the Indian Army in 2009, but the service was reluctant to buy what had become known as a mechanically-unreliable tank. The army was forced to buy 124 Arjun Mk. 1s, with the promise that future Mk.1A Arjuns would correct the original tank’s glaring flaws. The Arjun Mk.1 will probably serve for 20 years or less, considerably less time than it actually took to develop the tank.
T-72 (Russia)
Photo credit: SOPA Images - Getty Images
In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union sought to develop a tank that would be superior to existing NATO tanks in every way. The tank, later known as the T-72, would mount the powerful 125-millimeter 2A46M main gun, incorporate superior armored protection, have a low profile, and prowl the battlefield at high speeds. Soviet factories and licensees churned out 17,700 T-72s, and the tank was a major threat to the armies of NATO. These tanks still serve today in the Russian Army as the T-72B and T-72B3 main battle tanks.
Although a powerful tank on paper, the T-72 has serious problems. The main gun is mediocre by today’s standards, and the tank suffers from a lack of modern ammunition. The T-72’s low profile, while useful in avoiding detection, means the main gun cannot be elevated to engage enemies in multi-story buildings. Tanks such as the T-72B and -B3 have not received major armor upgrades, instead settling for the addition of blocks of reactive armor. Even today, most of the Russian Army’s T-72 tanks lack third-generation night vision sighting systems.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that the tank stores its main gun ammunition among the crew. A penetration of the tank’s main armor will often detonate the ammo, killing the crew before they have the opportunity to escape. Not only does this destroy the tank, it also wipes out an entire trained tank crew.
The T-72’s problems first came to light in the 1991 Gulf War, as Iraqi tanks demonstrated a tendency to violently explode in combat. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine has seen Russia lose 471 tanks in just six weeks, including 264 T-72s. Images of T-72s, their turrets blown off their hulls by ammunition explosions, are a common sight. A major problem is the use of anti-tank weapons with top attack capabilities, including the United Kingdom’s NLAW rocket and the American Javelin missile, which can circumvent the T-72’s main armor by firing a shaped charge into the top of a tank.
T-80 (Russia)
Photo credit: OLGA MALTSEVA - Getty Images
The T-80 is another holdover from the Soviet Union and, like the T-72, is serving beyond its expiration date. The T-80 and the T-72 are similar in armament, protection, and appearance, but with one key difference under the hood: the T-80 uses a gasoline-powered turbine engine instead of a diesel engine like the rest of the Russian Army’s tanks. This makes the T-80 more responsive on the battlefield and better in cold temperatures than a diesel-powered tank.
Despite these advantages, the T-80 has all the problems of the T-72 ... and then some. The T-80’s 1,250-horsepower GTD-1250 gas turbine engine is less reliable than the diesel engine that runs the T-72. It also uses more fuel and forces the Russian Army to keep two fuel supplies—gasoline and diesel—flowing to frontline units. This is a problematic combination for a Russian Army not known for attention to logistics and maintenance issues.
The T-80’s problems may have contributed to the overall failure of the Russian Ground Forces to achieve its objectives. Of 57 T-80U tanks lost by the Russian Army in Ukraine, only 15 were destroyed. The other 42 tanks were abandoned or captured, suggesting that the vehicles ran out of fuel or encountered mechanical problems. Of 21 slightly improved T-80BVM tanks, only six were destroyed, and the remaining 15 were either abandoned or captured.
- Jackie S
- 04-13-2022, 08:52 PM
Tanks are good if you are fighting an enemy with none, or the ones they have are inferior.i
As Arms manufactures come up with more effective anti tank weapons that can be wielded by one or two men, the future of tank warfare is questionable.
In Nam, we had 113A1 personnel carriers. You rarely found anybody actually riding in one. An AK round would not penetrate the 1.5 inch laminated aluminum Sides, but the DSHk’s would rip it to pieces.
Even our own Abrams main battle tank would be at a severe disadvantage if it came under attack by Javelines.
As Arms manufactures come up with more effective anti tank weapons that can be wielded by one or two men, the future of tank warfare is questionable.
In Nam, we had 113A1 personnel carriers. You rarely found anybody actually riding in one. An AK round would not penetrate the 1.5 inch laminated aluminum Sides, but the DSHk’s would rip it to pieces.
Even our own Abrams main battle tank would be at a severe disadvantage if it came under attack by Javelines.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 04-13-2022, 09:26 PM
Tanks are good if you are fighting an enemy with none, or the ones they have are inferior.i
As Arms manufactures come up with more effective anti tank weapons that can be wielded by one or two men, the future of tank warfare is questionable.
In Nam, we had 113A1 personnel carriers. You rarely found anybody actually riding in one. An AK round would not penetrate the 1.5 inch laminated aluminum Sides, but the DSHk’s would rip it to pieces.
Even our own Abrams main battle tank would be at a severe disadvantage if it came under attack by Javelines. Originally Posted by Jackie S
not necessarily. first the Javelin is a US made weapon so the Abrams wouldn't face one of our own weapons in combat and since we made the Javelin we know how to counter it. the current Abrams M1A2 uses an Israeli designed active protection system to counter state of the art systems like the Javelin.
the Russkies are losing a lot of tanks because their armor is lacking even with updates similar to the Abrams and the Challenger. the Brits are the ones that invented Chobham armor. that said, the Javelin is designed to air detonate directly above the turret to counter Chobham armor. i'd think the Abrams has a better chance with counter measures than the Russians and the turret armor is probably better.
one telling design flaw of Russian tanks that plays directly into the Javelin's air burst design (it can fire in direct mode also) is how the Russians store ammo in the turret. look at all the battle photos of Russian tanks going back the the Iraq wars and notice how many Russian tanks with their turrets blown completely off.
- texassapper
- 04-14-2022, 09:37 AM
Bottom lines, Tanks are tools. They are best employed to open a hole in enemy lines and exploit that opening. Tanks in Urban environments without infantry support are death traps.
Well that's somewhat true for the open field as well. I was never a fan... being closed up in an M1 or M2 is not my idea of a fun way to get to the shooting.
Well that's somewhat true for the open field as well. I was never a fan... being closed up in an M1 or M2 is not my idea of a fun way to get to the shooting.
- texassapper
- 04-14-2022, 09:44 AM
the Javelin is designed to air detonate directly above the turret to counter Chobham armor. i'd think the Abrams has a better chance with counter measures than the Russians and the turret armor is probably better. Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidNope. As far as I know the M1A2 SEP and Heavy don't have active counter measures. If the shaped charge gets through then an Abrams is toast as well. Those large rectangles on the top of an Abrams are blow outs that are an attempt to allow the crew to survive if the blast doors are closed to the ammo access.
It should work in theory, but I've never heard of a crew surviving a turret blow out... and I'm pretty sure the concussion would probably scramble their brains forever.
The leading tank in a column is called the turkey for a reason.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 04-14-2022, 09:48 AM
Nope. As far as I know the M1A2 SEP and Heavy don't have active counter measures. If the shaped charge gets through then an Abrams is toast as well. Those large rectangles on the top of an Abrams are blow outs that are an attempt to allow the crew to survive if the blast doors are closed to the ammo access.
It should work in theory, but I've never heard of a crew surviving a turret blow out... and I'm pretty sure the concussion would probably scramble their brains forever.
The leading tank in a column is called the turkey for a reason. Originally Posted by texassapper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abr...on_System_(APS)
In 2016, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps began testing out the Israeli Trophy active protection system to protect their Abrams tanks from modern RPG and ATGM threats by either jamming (with ATGMs) or firing small rounds to deflect incoming projectiles.[104] The Army planned to field a brigade of over 80 tanks equipped with Trophy to Europe in 2020.[105] It is planned for up to 261 Abrams to be upgraded with the system, enough for four brigades.[106] In June 2018, the Army awarded Leonardo DRS, U.S. partner to Trophy's designer Rafael, a $193 million contract to deliver the system in support of M1 Abrams "immediate operational requirements."[107] U.S. Army M1A2 SEP V2 Abrams tanks deployed to Germany in July 2020 fitted with Trophy systems.[citation needed] Deliveries to equip four tank brigades were completed in January 2021.[108]
- JohnnyGleet
- 04-14-2022, 09:52 AM
Boy. Somebody has their scissors and paste out today.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 04-16-2022, 04:40 PM
- VitaMan
- 04-16-2022, 05:02 PM
Somebody will turn it into a good treadmill.
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 04-17-2022, 03:00 AM
Tanks are good if you are fighting an enemy with none, or the ones they have are inferior.iGuess what? Biden is sending 600 M113 armored personnel carriers to Ukraine. That sounds bad ass to the uninitiated and journalists but we retired them for a good reason.
As Arms manufactures come up with more effective anti tank weapons that can be wielded by one or two men, the future of tank warfare is questionable.
In Nam, we had 113A1 personnel carriers. You rarely found anybody actually riding in one. An AK round would not penetrate the 1.5 inch laminated aluminum Sides, but the DSHk’s would rip it to pieces.
Even our own Abrams main battle tank would be at a severe disadvantage if it came under attack by Javelines. Originally Posted by Jackie S