Jump to content


Myths About Soviet Tanks Debunked


This topic has been archived.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

Gho2t993 #1 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 07:59

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3063 battles
  • 198
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010



wade1 #2 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 08:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 351
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
i wonder what the tank crews from gulf war 1 think about those videos ? of course , you'd have to scrape them off the walls of their t - 72's.

Gho2t993 #3 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 08:34

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3063 battles
  • 198
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010
why  negative rep ?
i post this video for education

Ketnix #4 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 09:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5993 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
Cool vids, thanks for that. +1

StugIII #5 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 09:37

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1680 battles
  • 117
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010
cool vid!  lol i would hate to be in any tank that stops working under water or a fire, got to hate the fire....

pershinggulf #6 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 21:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 185 battles
  • 466
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011
Soviet tanks weren't bad. Just the M1 was light years better.

Plod #7 Posted Aug 22 2011 - 21:58

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 9098 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View Postwade1, on Aug 22 2011 - 08:18, said:

i wonder what the tank crews from gulf war 1 think about those videos ? of course , you'd have to scrape them off the walls of their t - 72's.

Did you not watch the bloody videos? The T-72s that participated in the Gulf War were T-72Ms, the inferior export version.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Monkey_model

Quote

A good example of this is the dismal performance of Iraqi T-72 models during the Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.


AngusMcAWESOME #8 Posted Aug 23 2011 - 01:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5290 battles
  • 463
  • [COBT] COBT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View Postpershinggulf, on Aug 22 2011 - 21:04, said:

Soviet tanks weren't bad. Just the M1 was light years better.

More a matter of "Soviet Tanks weren't bad and so far the M1 and her NATO equivalents haven't really faced many actual Soviet tanks. Instead they've fought mostly against Polish, Ukrainian, or (god help the poor fools driving it) Chinese manufactured knock-offs assembled from kits using ammo the Russians wouldn't even deem worth while for training use, never mind actual combat."  That pretty much sums up most every tank in Iraq that survived long enough to actually make contact with Abrams and Challenger IIs.  We weren't actually facing top of the line soviet armor as the RUssians rarely exported that sort of kit outside of their immediate neighboring satellite republics, so most of what we saw were fairly inferior knock-offs built under license by other countries and assembled from kits. The ammo was the same situation, or worse, was locally produced after the Iran-Iraq war having exhausted the bulk of better quality foreign produced ammo.

M207 #9 Posted Aug 23 2011 - 02:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 202
  • Member since:
    02-19-2011

View PostGho2t993, on Aug 22 2011 - 07:59, said:



Nice animation for your signature!

Ketnix #10 Posted Aug 23 2011 - 08:45

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5993 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View Postpershinggulf, on Aug 22 2011 - 21:04, said:

Soviet tanks weren't bad. Just the M1 was light years better.

I question whether you watched the video or have any real knowledge on Soviet/Russian hardware.

Slacker #11 Posted Aug 23 2011 - 16:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 2507 battles
  • 576
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
It seemed to much propaganda to me with to little actual information. Also maximum armor thickness =/= better overall armor protection.

MacXlII #12 Posted Aug 23 2011 - 18:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11698 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
Interesting video, but are we supposed to just ignore "Western Propoganda" and listen to this video just because it says it's the truth?  This video is just more propoganda, not absolute truth.  It's cool to see both sides of propoganda though, it really makes me want to see each country bring their best tank and have a showdown, staged and sold like a boxing match.  Hell throw all modern tanks in the ring and see who comes out on top.  M1A2 vs Leopard 2 vs T-90 vs Challenger 2 vs Type 96 etc... I would pay big bucks for tickets to that tournament.  Of course, no one would agree to this, in fear of their tank not being #1 at the end of the day.

Lapland #13 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 03:32

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7626 battles
  • 972
  • Member since:
    08-08-2010

View PostDevil_Dog, on Aug 23 2011 - 18:03, said:

Interesting video, but are we supposed to just ignore "Western Propoganda" and listen to this video just because it says it's the truth?

Yeah, you ignore all the propaganda, read up all the info from both Eastern and Western weapon analysts, and then form your own opinion on the matter. Again, the video holds water considering that no modern MBT has fought another modern MBT

Gundamor #14 Posted Aug 25 2011 - 23:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2837 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
You should send this to the Russian R & D and Russian military. They wasted millions on upgrading the T-90 because of a lot these myths and "western propaganda". Also a main improvement in the T-95, which was canceled because of lack of money, was its enhanced crew survivability. Obviously not needed considering the one experience of these 4 tankers. The grenade proof made me chuckle. It definitely simulates getting hit with a DU sabot round. I mean it's almost an everyday occurrence in the history of warfare that a guy can hop on a tank and throw a frag grenade into a tank, especially modern ones. Of course again they wasted money improving the auto loader and ammo location problems which is much improved in the T-90. Think they run 2 auto loaders or something now with much better crew protection. No more T-72 carrousel of death. The Burlak T-90, which looks to be a pretty good upgrade package for t-72 and t-80s, even might be using steering wheel control. But according to these enlightening videos, they wasted much time and money on "myths" as the Burlak is also bigger and heavier then the exported T-90M. Panoramic commander's sight is probably the next thing they should fix if they haven't already. Not having 360 degree view is kinda bad.

Critical thinking is your friend in this thread. If you can get past the national pride thing.

Toasted_Rofls #15 Posted Sep 04 2011 - 03:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 9759 battles
  • 6,479
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011

View PostKetnix, on Aug 23 2011 - 08:45, said:

I question whether you watched the video or have any real knowledge on Soviet/Russian hardware.

I'm pretty sure the guy who posted that was a Marine during one of the Middle Eastern Conflicts, so yes, there is a good chance he has experience with it.

kurgen22 #16 Posted Sep 04 2011 - 04:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23002 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011
thanks for posting ,, great video,,, just some points,,, the export models still follow the same design as the "real" t 72s... the big differnt in the export model would be more in the lines of optics, computerized gunnery and communications gear,, which has little effect on what happens when the tank gets hit,,, if there is some sort of data that shows the steel or other material used is much lower than the regular t 72s. id have to say the import model theory may affect the overall performance but has little to do with what happens when it gets kissed by a sabot. One must also look at the crews. historically the soldiers manning theses imports are not very good, they get owned by professional tankers at every turn. Even the M 60 in good hands was more than a match for poor crews in a t 72.
one thing thats funny about the video... pointing out " hey you destroyed the tank but the turret stayed on is not really a positive reference

Lunaris #17 Posted Sep 04 2011 - 04:48

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8216 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
The video maker want to show you that ammo boom rarely rip the turret off. And the carousel auto loader isn't as dangerous as people often pointed out.

I think in the second video the gunner show that the tank was hit by sabot round.

Ketnix #18 Posted Sep 04 2011 - 05:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5993 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostToasted_Rofls, on Sep 04 2011 - 03:28, said:

I'm pretty sure the guy who posted that was a Marine during one of the Middle Eastern Conflicts, so yes, there is a good chance he has experience with it.

Not from the way his usual comments are about anything not American.

whukid #19 Posted Sep 04 2011 - 06:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1672 battles
  • 340
  • Member since:
    10-13-2010

View PostLapland, on Aug 24 2011 - 03:32, said:

Yeah, you ignore all the propaganda, read up all the info from both Eastern and Western weapon analysts, and then form your own opinion on the matter. Again, the video holds water considering that no modern MBT has fought another modern MBT

:blink:  Would you like to explain the First and Second Gulf Wars?

Lapland #20 Posted Sep 04 2011 - 06:18

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7626 battles
  • 972
  • Member since:
    08-08-2010

View Postwhukid, on Sep 04 2011 - 06:03, said:

:blink:  Would you like to explain the First and Second Gulf Wars?

Using monkey model cannon fodder tanks as an example of top of the line modern MBTs vs. their real equivalents is a pretty poor example.