Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 423
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  RTN Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:49 am

    Isos wrote:Greece compared a t-80 unit with nato tanks. It's on the web. T-80 faired poorly but it wasn't used the way soviet would use tanks.
    Makes sense. Not much has changed since then. Abram M1A2 even today has a better gun than the T-90. T-90s gun can't penetrate chobram beyond 2000 m.


    Isos wrote:Soviet tanks were build for big waves and deap attacks a d they would mostly take cover during engagements.
    Didn't get what you meant by "take cover during engagements". Compared to T-90 the M1A2 has superior armor (1200mm KE{kinetic energy/APFSDS-T}/ 1800mm CE {chemical energy/ HEAT-FS-T}).


    Isos wrote:Not some overexpensive tanks that need to fire on the move at 90km/h and hit a target 2000km away which would never happen in a war.
    Russia can't afford to spend as much on defense as NATO does. Ergo, can't afford expensive weapons. Even if you compare by PPP, Russia is way below US and Germany

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

    U.S electronics systems including range finding, sights, and fire control (meaning gun control not fire suppression) are MUCH superior to the Russian ones.

    NATO tanks like the M1A2 have better guns. T-90s ATGM is not as effective in mobile combat. It can't be fired on the move. It has to stop and then fire.

    To sum it up, we can see, the Russians field much greater numbers of tanks compared to the U.S. Russian Armored Vehicle Doctrine reflects what the Allies learned in WWII against superior German Armor and Guns: Massed vehicles in greater numbers are the ONLY way to defeat superior quality vehicles, weapons, and crews. Current American doctrine follows (somewhat) the ideas of German WWII Armored and Combined Arms Doctrine, speed, accuracy, high vehicle quality (meaning strength, survivability, and quality of components and not necessarily reliability), independent and creative thinking by the crews, and higher quality/better trained but generally fewer numbers of personnel.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7641
    Points : 7625
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Isos Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:07 am

    Makes sense. Not much has changed since then. Abram M1A2 even today has a better gun than the T-90. T-90s gun can't penetrate chobram beyond 2000 m.

    Neither can nato tanks penetrate most protected parts of t-90.
    M1A2 have the same weak spots. Just like any tank.

    Didn't get what you meant by "take cover during engagements". Compared to T-90 the M1A2 has superior armor (1200mm KE{kinetic energy/APFSDS-T}/ 1800mm CE {chemical energy/ HEAT-FS-T}).

    They would quickly dig in and just let their turret up to fire.

    NATO tanks like the M1A2 have better guns. T-90s ATGM is not as effective in mobile combat. It can't be fired on the move. It has to stop and then fire.


    ATGM are used from stand off position not at close range.

    Current American doctrine follows (somewhat) the ideas of German WWII Armored and Combined Arms Doctrine, speed, accuracy, high vehicle quality (meaning strength, survivability, and quality of components and not necessarily reliability), independent and creative thinking by the crews, and higher quality/better trained but generally fewer numbers of personnel.

    Germany lost so that doctrine is shitty. And most armies try to copy soviet ww2 doctrine of deep battle doctrine used against nazi.
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:18 am

    RTN wrote:
    To sum it up, we can see, the Russians field much greater numbers of tanks compared to the U.S. Russian Armored Vehicle Doctrine reflects what the Allies learned in WWII against superior German Armor and Guns: Massed vehicles in greater numbers are the ONLY way to defeat superior quality vehicles, weapons, and crews. Current American doctrine follows (somewhat) the ideas of German WWII Armored and Combined Arms Doctrine, speed, accuracy, high vehicle quality (meaning strength, survivability, and quality of components and not necessarily reliability), independent and creative thinking by the crews, and higher quality/better trained but generally fewer numbers of personnel.

    Only around 1943 were the Germans able to field well armed and decently armoured tanks. At the start of the war their tanks were way inferior to what the French fielded but their tactics were superior. Same story when they attacked Russia. They actually lost the war because they were "outproduced" by the Soviets. They had no chance of winning that war. Perhaps that should tell you something?

    Even the mighty can fall.
    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 M1-cap10
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:21 am

    It can even loose it's head in the process - just like the Iraqi export T-72's!
    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 M1-cap11
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 323
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:43 pm

    Isos wrote:
    They would quickly dig in and just let their turret up to fire.


    Why do you even bother to comment on that idiocy? scratch
    Maybe 2m/4m scratch Laughing  
    Or 3m/6m  clown
    "cant fire on the move"  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
    Oh dear Lord in communist heaven  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
    The guy should take the same medicines he has now, but double the dose.
    It would not help, anyway  Laughing but I suppose he would have been even funnier... clown

    Hole likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:04 pm

    RTN wrote:
    Didn't get what you meant by "take cover during engagements". Compared to T-90 the M1A2 has   superior armor (1200mm KE{kinetic energy/APFSDS-T}/ 1800mm CE {chemical energy/ HEAT-FS-T}).
    >He's not aware of the Swedish leaks Razz
    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 6D0BKY9

    RTN wrote:
    To sum it up, we can see, the Russians field much greater numbers of tanks compared to the U.S. Russian Armored Vehicle Doctrine reflects what the Allies learned in WWII against superior German Armor and Guns: Massed vehicles in greater numbers are the ONLY way to defeat superior quality vehicles, weapons, and crews. Current American doctrine follows (somewhat) the ideas of German WWII Armored and Combined Arms Doctrine, speed, accuracy, high vehicle quality (meaning strength, survivability, and quality of components and not necessarily reliability), independent and creative thinking by the crews, and higher quality/better trained but generally fewer numbers of personnel.
    Its generally a bad idea to copy the ideas of the loser. The Germans might boast the "better" tanks, but they had no answer to superior Soviet operational art and got rolled up all the way to Berlin. Perhaps American generals have acquired a taste for humiliating retreats from their German colleagues and I'm sure the Russians are more than happy to oblige them.


    Last edited by lyle6 on Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:00 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : misquote)

    xeno and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7641
    Points : 7625
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Isos Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:31 am

    You misquoted me. It wasn't me who said that.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29852
    Points : 30380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:24 am

    They had no way of knowing how would the Russians respond; as such they can only really keep in place to guard the coast against a possible Russian attack on the capital itself.

    If they were so worried about Russia why even start the attack in the first place... besides they had Turkey covering them...

    And they were so successful American tanks nailed more of their own than the enemy did. That says quite a lot to the effectiveness of thermals that the enemy can't even compare even when they were trying.

    It says a lot about the limitations of thermals in otherwise ideal conditions in terms of identifying targets properly.



    But not night vision devices for their line infantry.

    Ratnik includes night vision and they have deployed Ratnik 2 so far.

    Better a few hours on the depot and hundreds of thousands of dollars of early replacement for parts than burning husks with dead bodies inside.

    But it means you need to invent mobile moving depots...

    Then again, the Soviets are still limited by their logistics; they can't very well just unleash artillery barrages at every defensible position can they?

    They don't need to shell everywhere at random and hope, they could simply send their armoured forces forward and shell anything that forms up to meet them.

    Through longer ranged rocket artillery and air power of course.

    HATO never had an advantage in rocket artillery range...

    And if you are throwing tactical nukes around expect the same going your way as well.

    It will be western europe so fill your boots. Soviet tanks were all able to operate in NBC environment... HATO not so much.

    Before the Russians got their hands on Western thermal sights their ATGM teams were at a significant disadvantage.

    During the day time when the Russians would be coming their thermal sights would not be so useful, and ATGM teams can reach out and touch... hell Konkurs can reach out and touch to this day and take out Abrams.

    The tanks could see them just fine at ranges further than they can hardly spot the tank.

    Even today tanks have problems spotting ATGM teams.

    No guidance system is perfect; evasive maneuvers would still work to some extent but in combination with other means of protection like soft kill systems the chances of successfully dodging an attack would only improve.

    The fact you suggest it means you probably don't properly appreciate the problem... a 60 ton tank can't leap to one side at the last second... most of the time they won't even know it is coming let alone when to jump.

    Greece compared a t-80 unit with nato tanks. It's on the web. T-80 faired poorly but it wasn't used the way soviet would use tanks.

    The T-80s they bought are not upgraded modern versions, and I doubt they used new ammo for them either.

    T-90s gun can't penetrate chobram beyond 2000 m.

    Love the confidence... but wonder why they upgraded Chobham armour multiple times since it was first revealed in the early 1980s...

    Didn't get what you meant by "take cover during engagements". Compared to T-90 the M1A2 has superior armor (1200mm KE{kinetic energy/APFSDS-T}/ 1800mm CE {chemical energy/ HEAT-FS-T}).

    Where are you getting your numbers from dude?

    Russia can't afford to spend as much on defense as NATO does. Ergo, can't afford expensive weapons. Even if you compare by PPP, Russia is way below US and Germany

    Russia does not spend as much on defence as most HATO countries, but it can afford expensive weapons... the S-400 is not cheap, and nor is TOR or Pantsir to buy... in fact there are no HATO equivalents to any of those weapons, but Russia has got quite a lot of them.

    U.S electronics systems including range finding, sights, and fire control (meaning gun control not fire suppression) are MUCH superior to the Russian ones.

    So you say, but Combat approved videos show multiple hits on T-64 targets from 5kms range including while moving with unguided rounds suggests they are good enough.

    T-90s ATGM is not as effective in mobile combat. It can't be fired on the move. It has to stop and then fire.

    What makes you think that?

    The missile is laser beam riding like the Kornet which can be fired on the move.

    It is also supersonic so it does not take long to get to its target anyway.

    To sum it up, we can see, the Russians field much greater numbers of tanks compared to the U.S. Russian Armored Vehicle Doctrine reflects what the Allies learned in WWII against superior German Armor and Guns:

    To sum it up you are not paying attention, HATO under the CFE agreements are entitled to have rather more tanks than Russia, but Russia has withdrawn from it because HATO is not following the rules.

    In most ways German armour and guns were inferior to their Soviet equivalents.

    The tactics and crew layout were superior but their guns and tanks were not that great.

    Massed vehicles in greater numbers are the ONLY way to defeat superior quality vehicles, weapons, and crews.

    Not at all... in fact having too many tanks was probably a problem for the Soviets by the end of the cold war... WTF did they need 50K tanks for?

    Current American doctrine follows (somewhat) the ideas of German WWII Armored and Combined Arms Doctrine, speed, accuracy, high vehicle quality (meaning strength, survivability, and quality of components and not necessarily reliability), independent and creative thinking by the crews, and higher quality/better trained but generally fewer numbers of personnel.

    Of course... put them in super tanks and let them fight by feel and their better training and creative thinking will win the day...

    HAHAHA.

    The Germans might boast the "better" tanks, but they had no answer to superior Soviet operational art and got rolled up all the way to Berlin.

    The Soviets could have made better tanks, they chose not to because their better appreciation of what they are for and how long they will likely last in the real world... there was no need to make Panther tanks to a quality level that they will be running in 40 years time... in 40 years time they will be obsolete... making them much cheaper and able to last 10 years to a quality where they could make 60,000 instead of 6,000 and they might have won the war.
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:51 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    The Soviets could have made better tanks, they chose not to because their better appreciation of what they are for and how long they will likely last in the real world... there was no need to make Panther tanks to a quality level that they will be running in 40 years time... in 40 years time they will be obsolete... making them much cheaper and able to last 10 years to a quality where they could make 60,000 instead of 6,000 and they might have won the war.

    Exactly. In reality when a Tiger was lost in battle there was no replacement for it, but when the Russians lost a T34 another one filled it's place. This scenario will just repeat itself in any modern European conflict. Well at least until the first nuclear explosion Rolling Eyes
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 423
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  RTN Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:25 am

    Mir wrote:In reality when a Tiger was lost in battle there was no replacement for it, but when the Russians lost a T34 another one filled it's place.
    Tigers too were replaced. Also Tigers were fighting in Soviet Union. Whereas Soviets were defending their turf at home. It was easier for them to replace their T-34 faster than the Germans.

    Mir wrote:This scenario will just repeat itself in any modern European conflict.
    What makes you say that? Infra has improved across western Europe. Replacing a Leopard, Challenger Abrams won't take much time. Plus we now have strategic heavy lifters like C-5 and C -17 that can fly a tank all the way from U.S to Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkdwDvQLdZE
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:45 am

    Total Tiger production amounted to around 1300 tanks. Lets be generous towards the Germans and say around 50 000 T34's were produced during the war. Do you get the picture now?

    The very first targets in any war will be the infrastructure. There is no way that the EU would suddenly be able to produce tanks etc in any meaningful numbers during such a war. Bringing M1's or whatever in from the USA will be a treacherous affair and most of them will end up at the bottom of the Atlantic. There will be very little if any resupply. In the event of going nuclear (highly likely) there will be not much supplying to anybody at all.

    GarryB, kvs, JohninMK and Hole like this post

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 423
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  RTN Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:56 am

    Mir wrote:Total Tiger production amounted to around 1300 tanks. Lets be generous towards the Germans and say around 50 000 T34's were produced during the war. Do you get the picture now?

    The very first targets in any war will be the infrastructure. There is no way that the EU would suddenly be able to produce tanks etc in any meaningful numbers during such a war. Bringing M1's or whatever in from the USA will be a treacherous affair and most of them will end up at the bottom of the Atlantic. There will be very little if any resupply.
    Russia will target NATO tank regiments with Ballistic and cruise missiles like the Iskander and similarly the U.S too will target Russian tank regiments with stand off and long range cruise missiles.

    Mir wrote:In the event of going nuclear (highly likely) there will be not much supplying to anybody at all.
    Highly unlikely that a war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear.

    A war between Russia and China might.
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:07 am

    I really don't want to insult you but your post clearly shows your lack of knowledge. You are absolutely clueless.

    GarryB, xeno and ALAMO like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 323
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:23 am

    Mir wrote:I really don't want to insult you but your posts clearly shows your lack of knowledge. You are absolutely clueless.

    Fixed for you welcome Laughing

    GarryB, xeno and Mir like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1

    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  TMA1 Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:54 pm

    Haha nah he is just NATOcentric. One thing I like about this place is they dont just ban opposing views here or even the occasional troll. RTN makes some good posts sometimes though yeah he is sometimes wrong too. All you guys are pretty based. thumbsup
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 959
    Points : 1066
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  jhelb Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:10 am

    To drastically improve the quality of posts this forum actually needs more members from Russia. Members from other parts of Europe and North America should also be welcomed.

    However, this forum attracts members from third world like Africa and India. Ordinary people who post ordinary stuff.
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:39 am

    jhelb wrote:To drastically improve the quality of posts this forum actually needs more members from Russia. Members from other parts of Europe and North America should also be welcomed.

    However, this forum attracts members from third world like Africa and India. Ordinary people who post ordinary stuff.

    You recon!? Shocked Laughing
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 323
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:02 am

    Mir wrote:
    jhelb wrote:To drastically improve the quality of posts this forum actually needs more members from Russia. Members from other parts of Europe and North America should also be welcomed.

    However, this forum attracts members from third world like Africa and India. Ordinary people who post ordinary stuff.

    You recon!? Shocked Laughing  

    Well, he has some point.
    The first and the general issue is, that only a few of us speaks Russian.
    As it is an English language forum, still it would be nice to get some first-hand materials for the matter.
    On the other hand, the fact that the community represents a wider array of places is its very strong point. It is very informative and interesting to see things from a totally another perspective. I really appreciate the contribution of members from Egipt or Ethiopia, or South Africa, or India ... It proves the diversity of the real world. As long as we are tied to English, and central Anglosaxon narrative, we can't see shit from the real world.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29852
    Points : 30380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:46 am

    Tigers too were replaced. Also Tigers were fighting in Soviet Union. Whereas Soviets were defending their turf at home. It was easier for them to replace their T-34 faster than the Germans.

    They made less than 1,400 Tiger I tanks during 42-44... many of which were lost due to mobility issues and reliability issues before they got to battle... compared with about 35 thousand T-34/76s and almost 50 thousand T-34-85s...

    Over 5 thousand KV-1s were built from 39-43.

    Plus we now have strategic heavy lifters like C-5 and C -17 that can fly a tank all the way from U.S to Europe

    They had C-5s in the 1990s but still chose to take 6 months to send the bulk of the tanks by sea... it takes longer but means your aircraft are free to carry more urgent stuff and it also means your armour arrives in bulk all at once instead of in small groups.... and it is much much much cheaper.

    Infra has improved across western Europe. Replacing a Leopard, Challenger Abrams won't take much time.

    The Challenger III is not really much different from the Challenger II and might not really see service in any numbers anyway... budgets are tight and are being cut back all the time...

    Total Tiger production amounted to around 1300 tanks. Lets be generous towards the Germans and say around 50 000 T34's were produced during the war. Do you get the picture now?

    Not to mention some of those Tigers had to go to the western front...

    Russia will target NATO tank regiments with Ballistic and cruise missiles like the Iskander and similarly the U.S too will target Russian tank regiments with stand off and long range cruise missiles.

    Of course, but Russian air defence is very good and fully integrated to their Army and Air Force, while in the west it is based around aircraft which are supposed to provide both strike and defence capacity... something they will likely struggle with because of the defences of the Russian forces and their attack capacity too.

    Highly unlikely that a war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear.

    Because of your HATO belief in HATO superiority and moronic belief that Russia will start it by trying to invade.

    HATO is not superior and Russia is not interested in invading... Russia doesn't want the Ukraine or Belarus or Georgia or any of the Baltic states... a fight between HATO and Russia will consist of a HATO attack and Russia destroying that attack and the country it came from and likely the countries that ordered the attack... Russia has no need or interest to mount an armoured invasion of any current or future potential HATO country.

    You are deluded to think otherwise.

    Obviously the US promotes such nonsense because they see Russia as being a potential partner with Europe with enormous resources and less distance between it and the EU as the US has. The US sees Russia as a rival to EU attention and trade and it is scared so it demonises Russia and now China to prevent good relations. That is the purpose of HATO. To make Russia and now China the enemy.

    Haha nah he is just NATOcentric. One thing I like about this place is they dont just ban opposing views here or even the occasional troll. RTN makes some good posts sometimes though yeah he is sometimes wrong too. All you guys are pretty based.

    Banning someone for their views... how undemocratic, how anti free speech... how ironic... the number of times I got banned for my views on western oriented websites... but I am not bitter.... Razz

    To drastically improve the quality of posts this forum actually needs more members from Russia

    It would certainly help, but this is an english language forum intended to deal with myths and fake information about Russia... would western people who come here believe Russian people... and the answer sadly is they wont because they believe their own propaganda the most while claiming to believe the truth and anything to the contrary must therefore be propaganda and lies...

    Members from other parts of Europe and North America should also be welcomed.

    Honestly... no disrespect to those members from those places, but largely white colonial European countries have too much power as it is and giving them a forum to spew their hate and support their control and theft from smaller weaker countries which goes against their own ethics and morals by the way, would not make the world a better place... they will explain that these little weak countries don't know what they have so they need direction and guidance, when what they really mean is we gunna steel dair stuff coz dey is idyuts.

    Time for the rest of the world to wake up and see the west does not have their best interests at heart and they don't even like the truth let alone understand it themselves.

    Most white westerners think the west is a power for good, but if that was true then why are there still developing nations and 80% of all the worlds land and wealth in the hands of less than 1% of its people?

    They talk about fair but they don't mean it... and this crap is so far off topic I am going to have a trim and shift a lot of stuff.

    As long as we are tied to English, and central Anglosaxon narrative, we can't see shit from the real world.

    As Churchill once famously said... history will look kindly on me because I intend to write it myself... which ironically in one sentence renders all western history and therefore culture as biased bullshit propaganda...
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 323
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:25 am

    GarryB wrote:
    As Churchill once famously said... history will look kindly on me because I intend to write it myself... which ironically in one sentence renders all western history and therefore culture as biased bullshit propaganda...

    You are talking about a guy, who did not consider inhabitants of then-India as human beings.
    But they should not feel special in any way or treated racial.
    The same attitude he presented towards Bures in Africa, who used to be perfectly white.
    Such a lovely person, he was Laughing
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:54 am

    Mir wrote:
    jhelb wrote:To drastically improve the quality of posts this forum actually needs more members from Russia. Members from other parts of Europe and North America should also be welcomed.

    However, this forum attracts members from third world like Africa and India. Ordinary people who post ordinary stuff.

    You recon!? Shocked Laughing  

    I'm just fooling around here but last time I looked the Russians on Balancer had some difficulty identifying this weapon system being loaded onto the Schuka-B sub.
    I'm from Third World Africa and I know what it is - it's bottom anti-submarine mine and it's called pmk-1 Laughing

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 1234-c10

    GarryB and ALAMO like this post

    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:55 am

    ALAMO wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    As Churchill once famously said... history will look kindly on me because I intend to write it myself... which ironically in one sentence renders all western history and therefore culture as biased bullshit propaganda...

    You are talking about a guy, who did not consider inhabitants of then-India as human beings.
    But they should not feel special in any way or treated racial.
    The same attitude he presented towards Bures in Africa, who used to be perfectly white.
    Such a lovely person, he was Laughing

    Churchill ran from those Boers, that's why he did not like us much! Laughing

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 323
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:02 am

    Well, he organized concentration camps for your women, children, and elders while unable to fight the men ...
    I still feel astonished by his warm charm ...

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Russian tank discussion regarding cold war Thermal sights and development (temp title)

    Post  Mir Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:09 am

    ALAMO wrote:Well, he organized concentration camps for your women, children, and elders while unable to fight the men ...
    I still feel astonished by his warm charm ...

    The tradition continues - psychos rule over us. Mad

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29852
    Points : 30380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:08 am

    Churchill is revered as a war hero by those who benefited from his misdeeds and western history does look kindly on him because he wrote most of it, but the guy who invented concentration camps and was so racist won't remain a hero for long in the woke west...

    Regarding this thread, this is all the stuff removed from the T-90 thread... do with it as you please.

    The original post seemed to be complaining that the T-72 upgrade is not producing a new competitive tank able to dominate a WWIII battlefield against a HATO force, but as pointed out it is the cheap numbers tank, if the enemy has any quality then T-90s will be used which are being upgraded, and in time T-14s will be used which will probably dominate the battlefield, while the T-72 will support them very well... and be affordable.

    Something perhaps the west needs to learn about... printing new money is not going to work forever...

    Sponsored content

    Comparing Tanks - Page 14 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:36 am