Jump to content


Underrated Russian Vehicles


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
26 replies to this topic

T90MC #1 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 04:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 15781 battles
  • 2,282
  • [RUS-2] RUS-2
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011
To often are people blinded by western media

Russian tanks is Battle- The Facts
https://www.youtube....h?v=Z0GnspaRQFA
Abrams vs T-90
https://www.youtube....h?v=8UzarbZXFVs
BMP-3M
https://www.youtube....h?v=CjJzvwPLb84
BMP-3
https://www.youtube....h?v=FWC0t2IDtCo
"Russian Tanks" short documentary
https://www.youtube....h?v=YBM-gFx7lVc

Edited by T90MC, Mar 25 2013 - 04:59.


burtondrummerNY #2 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5376 battles
  • 372
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011
Bias detected.

T90MC #3 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 15781 battles
  • 2,282
  • [RUS-2] RUS-2
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View PostburtondrummerNY, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:00, said:

Bias detected.
Truth of the matter is there will be bias regardless which side you take in any argument.

Edited by T90MC, Mar 25 2013 - 05:02.


ysoignorant #4 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 18616 battles
  • 5,812
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    04-11-2012
The Abrams cannot, more-so should not be compared to T90. That goes both ways.



As for Russian tanks, they're not fairing too well in Syria. Especially when they're blowing up by themselves due to simple design problems. I do like Russia's independance when it comes to their military's equipment, but I find most of the weapons/vehicles they create is/are for profit. Not to be the best.

However, Russian defence minister(?) has requested a complete overhaul of their military a few years ago. He clearly wants to have an up to date military as the last combat action seen has proven them to be disorganized and outdated. I'd love to see some well-thought tanks, strike-fighters, and other new things to come from this.

Edited by ysoignorant, Mar 25 2013 - 05:13.


burtondrummerNY #5 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5376 battles
  • 372
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011

View PostT90MC, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:01, said:

Truth of the matter is there will be bias regardless which side you take in any argument.

Yes but the goal is to conceal your bias, not let it make your argument fail...

T2Terminator #6 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 3932 battles
  • 2,470
  • [WOONA] WOONA
  • Member since:
    12-02-2010
Let's start WW3 and find out which tank comes out on top   :glasses:


Quote

As for Russian tanks, they're not fairing too well in Syria. Especially when they're blowing up by themselves due to simple design problems.

Russian equipment sold to foreign countries aren't up to original specs; they're something called "monkey models". Besides, ERA is proving to keep even outdated T-72's alive in multiple engagements in Syria. There's a video of a T-model taking 3 or 4 RPG's and only having engine/hydrolic failure; the tank itself and crew survived.

Edited by T2Terminator, Mar 25 2013 - 05:07.


T90MC #7 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 15781 battles
  • 2,282
  • [RUS-2] RUS-2
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View Postysoignorant, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:01, said:

The Abrams cannot, more-so should not be compared to T90. That goes both ways.



As for Russian tanks, they're not fairing too well in Syria. Especially when they're blowing up by themselves due to simple design problems.
Not so much design problems so much as   poor crew training and tactics, such was reflected in previous conflicts with Israel

View PostburtondrummerNY, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:03, said:

Yes but the goal is to conceal your bias, not let it make your argument fail...
I made no effort to conceal my bias as I would have been accused of bias regardless

Edited by T90MC, Mar 25 2013 - 05:07.


_Goliard #8 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 22456 battles
  • 2,806
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    08-12-2010

View Postysoignorant, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:01, said:

However, Russian defence minister(?) has requested a complete overhaul of their military a few years ago. He clearly wants to have an up to date military as the last combat action seen has proven them to be disorganized and outdated. I'd love to see some well-thought tanks, strike-fighters, and other new things to come from this.

And to great success :D
http://www.telegraph...ia-and-flu.html

ysoignorant #9 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 18616 battles
  • 5,812
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    04-11-2012

View PostT2Terminator, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:04, said:

Let's start WW3 and find out which tank comes out on top   :glasses:




Russian equipment sold to foreign countries aren't up to original specs; they're something called "monkey models". Besides, ERA is proving to keep even outdated T-72's alive in multiple engagements in Syria. There's a video of a T-model taking 3 or 4 RPG's and only having engine/hydrolic failure; the tank itself and crew survived.

There's also videos of crews being extremely dissatisfied with the tank's problems. For example, certain system failures that could cause an ammo cook-off. Granted, they are like a Japanese car. Reliable most of the time, good performance for the price, plagued simple problems, and can be fixed with a few dollars.

I do understand they are underarmoured/undergunned versions of said Russian tank, but most internal systems are the same.

View PostT90MC, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:04, said:

Not so much design problems so much as   poor crew training and tactics, such was reflected in previous conflicts with Israel

Russian crew training has proven to be equally poor in previous conflicts.



Back on topic with RU tanks, the last inovative tank they made was the T-62. It's been a long since they've been creative.

Edit: Too many autocorrects on this damn tablet..

Edited by ysoignorant, Mar 25 2013 - 05:28.


T2Terminator #10 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 3932 battles
  • 2,470
  • [WOONA] WOONA
  • Member since:
    12-02-2010

Quote

There's also videos of crews being extremely dissatisfied with the tank's problems. For example, certain system failures that could cause an ammo cook-off.

True. There's one interview where the crew points out how easily the bolts attaching side plates/ERA give out after an RPG shot. But all 'round, they seem to like them (enough to get in them anyways)

Russian equipment isn't as reliable as NATO/US equipment (imo) but it shouldn't be something underestimated. And their new generation stuff is looking mean. (auto-correct can be a PITA too  :blinky: )

Edited by T2Terminator, Mar 25 2013 - 05:38.


EnsignExpendable #11 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 05:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 23067 battles
  • 14,609
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postysoignorant, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:21, said:

There's also videos of crews being extremely dissatisfied with the tank's problems. For example, certain system failures that could cause an ammo cook-off. Granted, they are like a Japanese car. Reliable most of the time, good performance for the price, plagued simple problems, and can be fixed with a few dollars.

I do understand they are underarmoured/undergunned versions of said Russian tank, but most internal systems are the same.



Russian crew training has proven to be equally poor in previous conflicts.



Back on topic with RU tanks, the last inovative tank they made was the T-62. It's been a long since they've been creative.

Edit: Too many autocorrects on this damn tablet..

T-64 came after the T-62, and the T-64 was as revolutionary as it gets (short of the Renault FT-17). Also I'd call Shtora and Arena pretty creative.


View Postysoignorant, on Mar 25 2013 - 05:21, said:

Russian crew training has proven to be equally poor in previous conflicts.

Which? Worked fine in Georgia  :trollface:

Zinegata #12 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 07:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7286 battles
  • 4,537
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
It really has to be noted that the Syrian Army, by all indications, is either poorly trained or exceedingly relucant to actually engage the enemy. Or both.

Which again proves the old adage that equipment quality has very little to do with actual combat performance.

Rhomer #13 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 11:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15035 battles
  • 1,012
  • [ASTYL] ASTYL
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011
Russian tanks being underrated in the west is a reflection of Soviet practices. Not any underlying propaganda purposes being implemented by the US. The Soviet Union sold vast quantities of crappy versions of their tanks to barely trained peasant armies. These armies and their equipment then get mauled by virtually every western armed military they go against.

What's sad is that the monkey model excuse doesnt hold up very well either because in at least half of the various wars that have pitted US equipment against its Russian equivalents, the US equipment was ALSO stripped down export models. You dont hear anybody crying about how the Saudi's F-15 and Abrams fleets were getting raped by Iraq because they werent mainline US weapons though. Or how Egypt's Abrams shouldnt be considered a REAL model because they arent the actual US model.

food for thought.

Toxn #14 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 13:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6129 battles
  • 1,578
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011
Oy vey, this again.

Can we all just agree that the Soviet Union was, shall we say, promiscuous in terms of how they used equipment to curry favour with (and arm) 3rd world nations. And that a lot of the stuff that got passed was indeed garbage. And that the design priorities of the Soviet Union did not mesh with those of the US/NATO et al.
BUT
That a lot of their kit was perfectly good for what it was designed to do, when it was designed to do it.

There is no way to know if the Soviet approach to armoured warfare would have worked out, because they never got a chance to use it as intended (no fulda gap, no gulf war one equivalent etc.). So we just don't know whether - working in the system it was designed for - the equipment would have done the job.


View PostZinegata, on Mar 25 2013 - 07:33, said:

It really has to be noted that the Syrian Army, by all indications, is either poorly trained or exceedingly relucant to actually engage the enemy. Or both.

Which again proves the old adage that equipment quality has very little to do with actual combat performance.

This. A thousand times this. You can be given the best gear in existence and do nothing with it because you don't know how to use it and don't know how to maintain it. The T-72s in Syria are, by all accounts, doing exactly as expected - they can take a hit or two but turn into flaming coffins when something penetrates into the ammo carousel or the poorly-stored rounds kept in the turret. A good crew would do better, but then well-trained soldiers wouldn't let themselves get into a situation where you're testing your tank's ability to absorb HEAT on a regular basis.

tl;dr - I'm deeply sick of 'technical' pop-history that pretends to compare things by stripping them of context.

Zinegata #15 Posted Mar 25 2013 - 15:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7286 battles
  • 4,537
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
I'd actually say that the export versions of Soviet / Russian weapons are perfectly serviceable as long as the armies using them understand their capabilities.

Sending T-72s unsupported and buttoned down into cities does not indicate a good understanding of the capability of the T-72.

Dominatus #16 Posted Mar 27 2013 - 02:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9938 battles
  • 12,016
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostRhomer, on Mar 25 2013 - 11:09, said:

What's sad is that the monkey model excuse doesnt hold up very well either because in at least half of the various wars that have pitted US equipment against its Russian equivalents, the US equipment was ALSO stripped down export models. You dont hear anybody crying about how the Saudi's F-15 and Abrams fleets were getting raped by Iraq because they werent mainline US weapons though. Or how Egypt's Abrams shouldnt be considered a REAL model because they arent the actual US model.

India vs Pakistan. Indian T-55s, T-72, and Centurions consistently defeated Pakistani Pattons. In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqis armed with T-72s and Iranians armed with a variety of tanks including Pattons performed about equally.

Rhomer #17 Posted Mar 28 2013 - 11:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15035 battles
  • 1,012
  • [ASTYL] ASTYL
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostDominatus, on Mar 27 2013 - 02:48, said:

India vs Pakistan. Indian T-55s, T-72, and Centurions consistently defeated Pakistani Pattons. In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqis armed with T-72s and Iranians armed with a variety of tanks including Pattons performed about equally.
A series of wars that prove crew training is still more important than anything else. In '47 you had Indian Shermans fighting evenly with Pattons, and in '65 you had Centurions mostly fighting Pattons to stalemates. You can pick individual battles in which one side triumphed over the other and the only mitigating factor was the unit training involved. It was as even a fight material wise as you are going to see. Same issue with Syrian Pattons getting mauled by Israeli Shermans. Under no technical evaluation will or should a sherman be considered a superior vehicle to the Patton but if your crew arent trained and your tactics are terrible, expect to lose.

The_Chieftain #18 Posted Apr 07 2013 - 15:06

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 4709 battles
  • 7,102
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
See my two "Devil's Due" articles in the Hatch

Spiley_Craw #19 Posted Apr 07 2013 - 16:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14372 battles
  • 1,403
  • [NBL] NBL
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012
You are a silly man, OP.

Battlefield and marketplace performance trumps propaganda and marketing.

Western designs are simply superior and have been since the '80s. Before that, the Russian
designs tended to be better. It might shift again someday, but so far, not.
-Kle.

pilot8218 #20 Posted May 02 2013 - 10:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16390 battles
  • 391
  • [COD] COD
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

View PostSpiley_Craw, on Apr 07 2013 - 16:42, said:

You are a silly man, OP.

Battlefield and marketplace performance trumps propaganda and marketing.

Western designs are simply superior and have been since the '80s. Before that, the Russian
designs tended to be better. It might shift again someday, but so far, not.
-Kle.


Everytime you post about anything Russian, it comes off as total nonsense.

But whatever helps you sleep at night champ.