Jump to content


The New Future Chieftain Line

Chieftain

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

21Blackjack #21 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 23:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View Postsovietdoc, on Feb 15 2017 - 22:50, said:

 

In real life Soviet tanks were the best tanks, only with the German WWII tanks coming in second. (When they war started they were actually better, but then by the time IS tanks came out, they were completely outclassed).  The Soviet Union finished WWII with the best tanks in the world at the time.

The brits had absolutely no idea how to make good tanks all throughout the war, mostly said for Americans as well.  Actually the story goes, during the Sherman development, the SU handed over a full specification of the German Panther tank which the Soviets just started to encounter on the Eastern front.  People in the US looked at the data and said that a tank like this was impossible, and could not have existed.  They blamed inaccurate intelligence information gathered by the SU.  Original Shermans were no match for German tanks when they first fought in Africa, forcing US to the drawing board, and acknowledging the fact that Soviet intelligence was indeed accurate.  

 

All tanks that came after WWII just became irrelevant because they never saw a lot of action.  Just proxy conflicts with outdated technology from the SU in the Middle East.  There has never been a real modern face to face tank showdown, other than Tank Biathlon which guess what, none of the NATO bloc countries wanted to participate in with their outdated Abrams tanks, and Russia won 3 years in a row. 

 

 

Except this isn't a WWII simulator, it's a videogame.

sovietdoc #22 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 23:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14832 battles
  • 1,605
  • [-PRO-] -PRO-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 14:08, said:

 

Except this isn't a WWII simulator, it's a videogame.

 

Yes, except the person is arguing in RL, and then saying that it's a problem because Cent was more than a match for T-54 and Patton.  And because this game is not accurate, it isn't.  I think even if this game was historically accurate, his point would not be valid because Cent is not that good.

21Blackjack #23 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 23:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View Postsovietdoc, on Feb 15 2017 - 23:11, said:

 

Yes, except the person is arguing in RL, and then saying that it's a problem because Cent was more than a match for T-54 and Patton.  And because this game is not accurate, it isn't.  I think even if this game was historically accurate, his point would not be valid because Cent is not that good.

 

But if its as terrible as you suggest, why is it still in service all over the world?

sovietdoc #24 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 23:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14832 battles
  • 1,605
  • [-PRO-] -PRO-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Post21Blackjack, on Feb 15 2017 - 14:13, said:

 

But if its as terrible as you suggest, why is it still in service all over the world?

 

For numerous reasons.  One of the primary reasons is the fact that Brits made a lot of them, boosting their economy.  But after they slowly got outdated over the years, they desperately needed to offload them, and sold them to all more or less loyal countries who could not afford better tanks, or who for political reasons were not allowed to buy tanks from the Soviet Union.  

And because since then, most western countries moved away from a tank doctrine to an air superiority doctrine, they were no longer built in large numbers.  So essentially, they were sold all over the world and in service by people who didn't know or couldn't afford better.  Also, with arms sales on such scale, don't forget about political pressure on countries to buy these instead of American tanks, for example.  Nothing is ever as it seems in politics.

One_Eyed_Cheat #25 Posted Feb 16 2017 - 00:18

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 262
  • Member since:
    12-18-2015

View Postsovietdoc, on Feb 15 2017 - 22:50, said:

 

In real life Soviet tanks were the best tanks, only with the German WWII tanks coming in second. (When they war started they were actually better, but then by the time IS tanks came out, they were completely outclassed).  The Soviet Union finished WWII with the best tanks in the world at the time.

The brits had absolutely no idea how to make good tanks all throughout the war, mostly said for Americans as well.  Actually the story goes, during the Sherman development, the SU handed over a full specification of the German Panther tank which the Soviets just started to encounter on the Eastern front.  People in the US looked at the data and said that a tank like this was impossible, and could not have existed.  They blamed inaccurate intelligence information gathered by the SU.  Original Shermans were no match for German tanks when they first fought in Africa, forcing US to the drawing board, and acknowledging the fact that Soviet intelligence was indeed accurate.  

 

All tanks that came after WWII just became irrelevant because they never saw a lot of action.  Just proxy conflicts with outdated technology from the SU in the Middle East.  There has never been a real modern face to face tank showdown, other than Tank Biathlon which guess what, none of the NATO bloc countries wanted to participate in with their outdated Abrams tanks, and Russia won 3 years in a row. 

 

 

I wouldn't consider the Abrams outdated but then again even China has done well in the Tank Biathlons the past year or two. Strong turret and gun handling that gets the job done is something every tank crew desires.

sovietdoc #26 Posted Feb 16 2017 - 00:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14832 battles
  • 1,605
  • [-PRO-] -PRO-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostOne_Eyed_Cheat, on Feb 15 2017 - 15:18, said:

 

I wouldn't consider the Abrams outdated but then again even China has done well in the Tank Biathlons the past year or two. Strong turret and gun handling that gets the job done is something every tank crew desires.

 

Ever since Russia showed the world their Armata tank, every single other tank in the world has all the sudden fallen a generation behind at least.  Kind of like when the US first came out with the F-22 Raptor.

It could be argued that in a modern world, the tanks are no longer needed.  But they do come extremely useful still if you deploy troops on the ground.  A  tank is still the single best armored unit on the ground.  You can't call continuous airstrikes and at some point you'll need armor to provide pushing capability.

One_Eyed_Cheat #27 Posted Feb 16 2017 - 00:48

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 262
  • Member since:
    12-18-2015

View Postsovietdoc, on Feb 16 2017 - 00:38, said:

 

Ever since Russia showed the world their Armata tank, every single other tank in the world has all the sudden fallen a generation behind at least.  Kind of like when the US first came out with the F-22 Raptor.

It could be argued that in a modern world, the tanks are no longer needed.  But they do come extremely useful still if you deploy troops on the ground.  A  tank is still the single best armored unit on the ground.  You can't call continuous airstrikes and at some point you'll need armor to provide pushing capability on the ground.

 

I agree but we can't forget that modern tanks in general all have similar weaknesses that even a simple IED can take advantage of. I don't see the West making good advances on their tanks for the next few years except for maybe Germany. UK is basically open for anyone to just walk in as years of cuts of hollowed it out and several of their subs had to be pulled from service this month due to bad wields in the piping (reactors). Could go on but that would be very depressing.

sovietdoc #28 Posted Feb 16 2017 - 00:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14832 battles
  • 1,605
  • [-PRO-] -PRO-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostOne_Eyed_Cheat, on Feb 15 2017 - 15:48, said:

 

I agree but we can't forget that modern tanks in general all have similar weaknesses that even a simple IED can take advantage of. I don't see the West making good advances on their tanks for the next few years except for maybe Germany. UK is basically open for anyone to just walk in as years of cuts of hollowed it out and several of their subs had to be pulled from service this month due to bad wields in the piping (reactors). Could go on but that would be very depressing.

 

A simple IED can't take out a tank.  For example, in the Lebanese conflict in 2006, IDF's 401 Armored Corps Brigade only lost 2 Merkava's to IED's.  And those were heavy IED's, not your typical "blow up the bus" types.  

A charge significant enough to completely destroy a tank is not that easy to conceal.  Although theoretically, yes, IED's are dangerous to tanks, there are a lot more tools in army's arsenal now that can find these devices.  Especially when the device is large enough to take out a tank.

I have a feeling this thread has kind of been sidetracked lol.

21Blackjack #29 Posted Feb 16 2017 - 01:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 20216 battles
  • 2,265
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View Postsovietdoc, on Feb 16 2017 - 00:58, said:

 

I have a feeling this thread has kind of been sidetracked lol.

 

Who cares, its not like WG gave a flying **** about British tanks in the first place.







Also tagged with Chieftain

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users