equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[nkenny 1057]

There is a simple reason why Western designers had to to be very specific and careful with their claims about their products, not least because their competitors (IE other western companies) were trying to sell similar equipment and any illegitimate claim would be torn to pieces very quickly, which looks bad to your customers when you are trying to sell them multibillion dollar defence projects....

Damn straight.

If its one thing western capitalism does get right its that the BEST product wins all the time. I mean it always does what it says on the box, particularly when it comes to modern military equipment. How else could they sell it?

In the Soviet Union equipment specifications, production facilities and executive design decisions all came down to politicians, their hordes of lying cronies and the Generals/Admirals currently in favour. No wonder all they did was crap!

Man you've really made me see things clearer Ollie.

-k

[maturin 12]

Damn straight.

If its one thing western capitalism does get right its that the BEST product wins all the time. I mean it always does what it says on the box, particularly when it comes to modern military equipment. How else could they sell it?

In the Soviet Union equipment specifications, production facilities and executive design decisions all came down to politicians, their hordes of lying cronies and the Generals/Admirals currently in favour. No wonder all they did was crap!

Man you've really made me see things clearer Ollie.

-k

Are you being sarcastic, or do you just not know anything about the corruption and waste of U.S. military acquisitions.

Capitalism my ass.

[Beagle 684]

Oh how naïve you are... :j:

The "west" is full of just as much bullshit as the "east" when it comes to mil-specs...

Definately...I have worked for such a company, in one incident they knew that a APC prototype had a bad cooling problem for the electronics...so they kept it cool and showed in in acton only for 30 minutes to army officers on a inspection...because the electronics blackout never happened before 40 minutes. I did work in production line and believe me...ive seen in lot of shoddy work done by badly trained and badly payed workers happening in the defense industries.

he western industries are about to mimic china in lots of aspects to sage costs and maximize profit, defense industry is not excluded in this strategy.

The numbers given in the glossy brochures are always taken under optimum conditions...every servicemen knows that the capabilities under field conditiosn are rarly aanywhere near the "official" statements, no matter if its a rifle or a Guided missile System or a thermal observation system.

Life it not so simplyfied as games tend to be...a bit to much oil or grease on your Optics may spoil the whole performance and sometimes a damned broken knob takes you technically out of action.

Have a closer look!

Edited April 27, 2011 by Beagle

[dreday 1]

... Janes- an international organisaton of certified experts who use verified data and sources.

Janes Information Group is a publisher from UK that prints out defense reports based on the publicly available information. Their data is far from universally verified and no one certifies their "experts". They are prone to biases and misinformation just like everyone else. Their data is far from verified and they are only as good as their sources (which might include that same Russian website that you are so fired up against).

Peace,

DreDay

[Ollie1983 10]

Janes Information Group is a publisher from UK that prints out defense reports based on the publicly available information. Their data is far from universally verified and no one certifies their "experts". They are prone to biases and misinformation just like everyone else. Their data is far from verified and they are only as good as their sources (which might include that same Russian website that you are so fired up against).

Peace,

DreDay

Errr, all their data and intelligence is open source. The very fact they have been at their game and are respected internationally and in many industry circles, I think, makes them 'experts' in my understanding of the term. Perhaps you have data to suggest the contrary, though. please do share it.

Again, apparently western manufacturers are all corrupt and produce utterly crap designs and are forced to fabricate performance reports. That being the case, one does wonder why foreign powers spend so much money with them...

Corruption and deceit was basically a way of live in the Soviet union. Such was their fear of the West. It would appear that even non-FSU residents are prepared to accept their claims. Thank heavens Beagle is not responsible for defence procurement.

[dm 9]

Still living in the 80's I see.

You really dont have to look very hard to see how much of a debacle "western" procurement/defence industry is.

F-22; late, over budget, under-spec

F-35; late, over budget, under-spec

KC-X; late, over budget, under-spec, restarted and re-spec'd so that the US company would win. People ended up in jail for the political and commercial bullshit that went on with KC-X (I would really reccommend looking up this one)

to name but a few...

Again, apparently western manufacturers are all corrupt and produce utterly crap designs and are forced to fabricate performance reports. That being the case, one does wonder why foreign powers spend so much money with them..

This is a gem of a quote... I would suggest you look up foreign sales of Russian equipment too. I think you'll find it matches that of the US, and both outstrip that of the EU.

Seriously, get over yourself, get over the whole "the west is better than the east" bullshit, and people might start taking you seriously. Until then, you sound like some brainwashed 12 year old, spouting the usual "Amerikuh good, Soviets BAD!" nonsense from the Cold War.

[Ollie1983 10]

lol! Another Soviet fanboi who is apparently so set in his mindset that he can't face reality.

I could not care a damn about east vs west, I have no interest in their equipment, specifications or costs at all beyond a mere academic one.

What concerns me is this daft notion that somehow a backward and economically crippled nation managed to produce vastly superior equipment to anything the west has fielded when the amount of money spent by the latter was many times the former!!

I do laugh at the pro Russian folk here on this thread, and I wonder just who is living in 1980. Despite actual fact being thrown in their faces at every turn they STILL refuse to accept that their view point is wholly and utterly 180 degrees out!

You reckon the Russians sell more arms than anyone else? What by volume, total expenditure, units sold, number of customers etc etc??? You haven't a clue have you? What basis did you arrive at that opinion from then? Every man you see on the news is armed with an AK-47? Obviously they all came from Russia then, weren't built under license or copied or anything...

Really now, how old are you characters? When someone posts a clearly amateur website and claims it is on an equal footing to Janes, it does smack of foolishness.

But what do I know, apparently the T-90 is utterly kick ass and the people who made Arma 2 were just biased or something...:D

Many thanks for the great discussion and fun I have had here on this thread. The one about the Elbe river was just comedy gold in particular.

[dm 9]

lol! Another Soviet fanboi who is apparently so set in his mindset that he can't face reality.

Fanboi. Oh how I love that word. Go-to excuse for people who've run out of real arguments.

I neither prefer east nor west, both sides have interesting equipment, influenced by political and commercial choices. If you really want to know, I favour British vehicles and equipment, but thats not the point here. We're not in the Cold War anymore, it isnt east vs west. Thats long gone.

Spending more money does NOT make something better.

Both sides are just as corrupt (I even gave you examples!) as each other. Both sides choose the lowest suitable (before Baff jumps in here again) bidder for their political needs.

Yes, the "west" is ahead in certain technical aspects. But just because the poorly made export T-72s fared badly in the 1st Gulf War, doesnt mean that all "eastern bloc" equipment is that bad. If you actually knew anything about "eastern bloc" equipment, and/or the actual history of the Cold War, you'll know that the west was terrified of what the Soviets were fielding in Central Europe. Captured tanks were tested in live-fire events, and it was regularly discovered that the current technology was unable to penetrate and destroy them. If you really want, I can cite some of these when I get home (from books far more reputable than any site on the internet). But I expect you'll just ignore all of this and call me a fanboi again.

:j:

[nkenny 1057]

Ollie1983 has pretty much provided proof that the Soviet Union essentially didn't exist or measured as a military threat. I mean get real man. Modern day military equipment are all ranked by the universal manufacturers PTA* standard. Anything that doesn't measure up is obviously subpar.

You want real conclusive proof. Look at Afghanistan. I mean the Soviet efforts in the nation left the nation in a right mess, and their invulnerable tanks obviously didn't give them victory. Here is evidence. Just look at how America and the coalition forces are dominating Afghanistan today. NOT AT ALL like how the Soviets bungled the effort a few decades back. I mean it all comes down to logic.

Look we're trying to be academic and sensible about the issue. Don't go dragging books into the equation. Youtube, History Channel, or it didn't happen.

- k

* (manufacturers) Proximity to America; ranked 0(worst) to 1(best)

edit: Incidentally the thread has veered far of course. Hard to keep a straight face with all this englightened discussion going on.

edit2: Also try reading the entire post.

Edited April 28, 2011 by NkEnNy

[wolfbite 8]

How can you compare the Soviet Afghan war to the Current conflict? They have no bearing on each other....Politically or military tech wise.......

[dm 9]

How can you compare the Soviet Afghan war to the Current conflict? They have no bearing on each other....Politically or military tech wise.......

Its sarcastic commentary on ollie's frankly retarded comments

[-Paladin- 10]

There was also a situation fall of the Berlin wall.

Lots of hi tec and crap soviet stuff and knowleg had fallen to west hands,

From the NVA

From the Polish

From the Czech

Poland does build still under license T-72 variants.

Czechs dos it too i think.

The Brits manged somehow to get there hands on T-80 in the cold war era.

The West has all the soviet tech and don’t have to "Imagine" how it works or what materials are used. They know it and they can make conclusions on how the upgrades work.

The west had the time and possibility of testing and learning from soviet tanks.

Shooting east tanks and let the east tanks shoot west tanks to test armor and fier power.

Russia doesn’t on west tanks.

T-Tanks are build for infantryy support and not for tank fights for that matterRussiaia has kornet at-14 and other stuff.f.

West tanks are build for tank hunting (east tanks).

East has improvt the armor of there tanks, the only reason why I can explain to me the change from L44 to L55.

M1 and L2 where build after the west has shiten theme self after they saw the T-72.

L1 and M-60 where not efficient eanath so M1 and L2 where deft, with one reason

Kill T-Tanks

The Russian tech has advanced but you have to know that the west is many steps ahead of russia.

And size is every thing in terms of tanks bigger tank means more space for armor, bigger gun more dmg/range.

And for the topic

No equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

east tanks come in masses they outgun the west but are not equal in armor and dmg.

[Beagle 684]

And for the topic

No equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

east tanks come in masses they outgun the west but are not equal in armor and dmg.

Youre getting something wrong here. We are not asking for the same amount of hitpoints, we are asking for an actual damage model...right now it is...hit T-72 anywhere, (tracks) and it blows up.

We simply dont wan't T-72 to explode instantly when tipped by a damned high number of weapons that should not be able to kill in in one shot from front like old AT5, PG-7VR, Dragon, 105mm, NLAW, 25mm, 30mm, 40mm Autocanons etc. rendering that RL still quite effective MBT a bad joke in ArmA II.....especially considering that a T-72 is the best you will get in OA multiplayer matches.

[nkenny 1057]

1. T-Tanks are build for infantryy support and not for tank fights for that matterRussiaia has kornet at-14 and other stuff.f.

2. And size is every thing in terms of tanks bigger tank means more space for armor, bigger gun more dmg/range.

1. The idea that tanks can be replaced are a common, largerly abandoned belief, that originated from the time when the first wire-launched rocket systems proved workable. In the big picture about as relevant as the prevailent Airforce belief that they can win wars by themselves.

2. Size means greater profile and signature. Greater fuel expenditure. Impossible logistical and administrative problems-- try moving a tank which is built wider than the railwaylines (insert reference about horses arses). etc etc

The keys to armored warfare-- aside from technological parity or better still superiority and all the administrative bits (fuel, spare parts, ammunition, trained crew, food) seems to be INITIATIVE and having LOTS OF TANKS concentrated in an aggressive formation.

-k

[-Paladin- 10]

Youre getting something wrong here. We are not asking for the same amount of hitpoints, we are asking for an actual damage model...right now it is...hit T-72 anywhere, (tracks) and it blows up.

We simply dont wan't T-72 to explode instantly when tipped by a damned high number of weapons that should not be able to kill in in one shot from front like old AT5, PG-7VR, Dragon, 105mm, NLAW, 25mm, 30mm, 40mm Autocanons etc. rendering that RL still quite effective MBT a bad joke in ArmA II.....especially considering that a T-72 is the best you will get in OA multiplayer matches.

I dont want that T-72 explods when he gets hit in the tracks, but in the opening thred was standing equal dmg and hitpoints for west east.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

1. The idea that tanks can be replaced are a common, largerly abandoned belief, that originated from the time when the first wire-launched rocket systems proved workable. In the big picture about as relevant as the prevailent Airforce belief that they can win wars by themselves. -k

I didn't write any thing about replacing tanks just that every weapons is build for a special purpose.

You don't assault a room with a bolt action rifle and so......

And to deal with west tanks Russia has his wire and laser radio and what else controlled ATGM that are very effective.

2. Size means greater profile and signature. Greater fuel expenditure. Impossible logistical and administrative problems-- try moving a tank which is built wider than the railway lines (insert reference about horses arses). etc etc

-k

I did not mean with size of a Ratte tank but for what you need a small tank that has not much armor to be protect against MMG and HMG can drive 1k km but its main gun is not even scratching the opponents armor.

You see two world collide small and fast against heavy and big.

Sure the golden middle wins. But in cases of railway lines and tunnels wight capacitate of Bridges you should get to max to have the better tank, in a bigger turret you can fit bigger guns more armor and ammo bigger and faster Computers even backup systems and active protection Crew and tank.

You make it possible that the crew survives and keeps his experience and not that you have to start at 0 lvl with new crews because your turrets explode like wild becouse there is no space to keep ammo and crew separated.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

This thread is getting better and better! :) Really! When Im in bad mood, or I just want to laugh a bit, the first thing I usually do is check this thread if there are new posts by Ollie1983. The most funny is that this guy actually takes everything he writes seriously. :D

[Ollie1983 10]

I like this thread too, because I do take everything seriously, these kinds of topics are of good academic interest. Whereas others just seem to want to argue because they are pro-soviet fanbois.

For the record, I'm not American and could not give a flying fig about the equipment used by east or west. What does concern me are those who seem to think the Soviets were supermen or had invulnerable equipment. When clearly, that is anything but the case.

I had a great time on Arma 2 OA at the weekend, in an M1 Tusk, I was hammering town after town, it is great fun hitting Taki armour with Sabots and watching them catch fire or explode. Then you use HEAT rounds on the M113 or BTR type vehicles, cripple them and then machinegun their crews!! :D

I'm uncertain which exact vehicle it was but I think I had a go in a captured BMP the other day, using its cannon I really hammered some enemy gear with that, the smaller auto cannon being particularly useful for soft skinned trucks and APCs.

Anyway, my reign of thunder was brought to an abrupt end because in one of the later towns there was a full arty battery that our air power had not zeroed out and they hit us by firing over open sights, leaving us seriously damaged. Then we promptly ran out of ammo for all our weapons and had to go on foot.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Ollie1983

[max power 21]

Ollie showed up on this forum with this 'pro-soviet fanboi' chip on his shoulder, and he's been favouring it ever since. I wonder if all 90 of his posts contain the words 'soviet' and 'fanboi' right next to each other.

[noubernou 77]

As far as tanks go there was no comparison between western and eastern tanks in the 1980s and since then.

The only way to compare them is in a numbers vs. numbers fight, which was the Soviet strategy.

If you look at the Soviets in World War II and the Germans in the same war and compared ONE T-34 to pretty much any German tank and ranked them on their points the German tanks would come out on top. They were superior machines.

But we know how the war turned out... The Germans were slaughtered by the T-34 because of the sheer number they deployed. This mentality persisted through the rest of the Soviet Unions existence. Their motto was "why build something to such a high standard if its likely going to be blown up very quickly."

The more you can build the better, the less men it takes to crew one the better (hence the early adoption of autoloaders), and the more simple it is for the crew that does ride in them the better.

Arguing otherwise is to deny acknowledged and proven Soviet doctrine and years and years of intelligence gathering by pretty much every NATO nation.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

In contrary to the myths surrounding the T-34, in the last years of the war it was little more than practice target for the Germans. The IS-2 was the true war-winner tank. Without it, the red army would have been still won, but months, if not years later.

"why build something to such a high standard if its likely going to be blown up very quickly."

The more you can build the better, the less men it takes to crew one the better (hence the early adoption of autoloaders), and the more simple it is for the crew that does ride in them the better.

This isnt entirely true. The T-34 was an extremely primitive and crude tank, while the T-54/55 was a quite good quality and advanced vehicle in the '50s, (which western tank had stabilized gun that time?) although it was still more simple than the western tanks, and its design philosophy was similar to the T-34.

The T-64 was the turning point. It was a top quality tank, the best in the world in the '60s, '70s. Its design philosophy was similar to the WW2 German, quality over quantity. It was so expensive that the soviets had to develop a much more simple tank for their 2nd line divisions, it became the T-72.

The elite guards divisions were almost exclusively equipped with T-64 and T-80.

Using autoloader has nothing to do with reducing the number of the crew, its a different story.

[dm 9]

What does concern me are those who seem to think the Soviets were supermen or had invulnerable equipment. When clearly, that is anything but the case.

It is ironic then, that you should think that the "West" were/are supermen with invulnerable equipment, isnt it. ;)

(god damnit I hate the "new" smilies. I want the old ikonboard set back...)

Every time you're presented with a rational argument you just dive right in with the "Soviet fanboi" approach. Not exactly SERIOUS or ACADEMIC now, is it?

[dreday 1]

As far as tanks go there was no comparison between western and eastern tanks in the 1980s and since then.

I would tend to agree that the latest versions of Abrams, Leo II, and Challanger have been superior to their Soviet/Russian counterparts since the mid 80s. The major reason for that was due to the Western advancements in the Fire Control and Thermal Imaging technologies. Soviets were not able to catch up prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and afterwards they have lost most of their funding. However, the case was much less clear in the 70s and early 80s. Many people would argue that T-64 was superior to most (if not all) Western tanks of the period.

The only way to compare them is in a numbers vs. numbers fight, which was the Soviet strategy.

That was part of the Soviet design philosophy, but definitely not all of it. Ultimately, the Soviets had made the tanks that were best suited for them and the NATO powers had design the tanks that fitted them best.

If you look at the Soviets in World War II and the Germans in the same war and compared ONE T-34 to pretty much any German tank and ranked them on their points the German tanks would come out on top. They were superior machines.

Again, a lot of people would argue that T-34 and KV-1 were superior to any German tank in 1941 and early 1942. Same argument can be made for JS-2 in 1944 and JS-3 in 1945.

But we know how the war turned out... The Germans were slaughtered by the T-34 because of the sheer number they deployed. This mentality persisted through the rest of the Soviet Unions existence. Their motto was "why build something to such a high standard if its likely going to be blown up very quickly."

You can use the same logic to describe the US and British tank design philosophy of that period (WWII) - so what does that really tell us?

The more you can build the better, the less men it takes to crew one the better (hence the early adoption of autoloaders), and the more simple it is for the crew that does ride in them the better.

Again, that's a fairly simplistic look at the Soviet design principles that were a lot more complicated than that. Every tank design is a compromise between armored protection, firepower, and mobility. Soviets had chosen their priorities differently than the NATO countries, but it's difficult to say that one approach was better than the other...

Peace,

DreDay

[noubernou 77]

Again, that's a fairly simplistic look at the Soviet design principles that were a lot more complicated than that. Every tank design is a compromise between armored protection, firepower, and mobility. Soviets had chosen their priorities differently than the NATO countries, but it's difficult to say that one approach was better than the other...

I never said one philosophy/strategy was better than the other, I am just stating that in a 1 vs. 1 fight most western tanks are superior in FCS, armor, and crewmanship than their eastern counter parts. They also cost a boat load more, require more training, and need lots more logistical support.

In a full on hypothetical Cold War fight, Warsaw Pact vs. NATO, it'd be a blood bath on both sides.

Your comment on the US tanks in WW2 being mass produced is true, but we moved away from that and took a line more along that of the Germans for some reason, in that a better quality tank would have more of advantage than a lot of lower quality tanks.

Really when it comes down to it though its going to be crewmanship with modern tanks like the T-90. The west would have a slight advantage there just because of the organizational differences in how Russia and the west maintain their troops level of training.

[dreday 1]

NouberNou,

I definitely agree with your points regarding the modern-day state of things. My point was that the Soviets were not simply about making larger numbers of cheaper tanks and the NATO powers did not always have the superiority in tank armor, protection, and mobility (even on 1 vs 1 basis). Both sides had designed the tanks that were considered best suited for them and I find it difficult to say that one tank design philosophy superior to the other prior to the mid 1980s.

Peace,

DreDay

[Ollie1983 10]

As far as tanks go there was no comparison between western and eastern tanks in the 1980s and since then.

The only way to compare them is in a numbers vs. numbers fight, which was the Soviet strategy.

If you look at the Soviets in World War II and the Germans in the same war and compared ONE T-34 to pretty much any German tank and ranked them on their points the German tanks would come out on top. They were superior machines.

But we know how the war turned out... The Germans were slaughtered by the T-34 because of the sheer number they deployed. This mentality persisted through the rest of the Soviet Unions existence. Their motto was "why build something to such a high standard if its likely going to be blown up very quickly."

The more you can build the better, the less men it takes to crew one the better (hence the early adoption of autoloaders), and the more simple it is for the crew that does ride in them the better.

Arguing otherwise is to deny acknowledged and proven Soviet doctrine and years and years of intelligence gathering by pretty much every NATO nation.

Finally, someone with some genuine understanding of the wider subject.

The Russians had massive advantages with numbers, and also had more of their units closer to the battle line- West Germany was simply a matter of starting a tank engine and ploughing forward. The West realised this long ago, the West were very afraid of the walls of soviet armour not least their front line units but also because the Soviets had a tendency of storing away old equipment for years- they never threw anything away.

It is highly likely that losses would have been high on both sides, but the Russians would have probably got their tracks across most of Germany in the early days. Then the problems of resupply of all those vehicles would have mounted up.

There is also the nuclear option and the West had a serious plan for using nukes against the armoured columns which is why things like the Davy Crockett were dreamt up (obviously a very old example, soon replaced by much more sensible designs later on by the Lance etc).

A quick bit about the T-34 though, it was a war winning machine. Firstly, it had sloped armour and was physically smaller than the German designs. This made it a bit more resistant to German shells, without the weight penalty, and also harder to spot. In addition it had a relatively light weight with broad tracks- giving good flotation in the sodden battlefields of the East. It was also reliable and had good cross country performance. The Russians also perfected tank and infantry combined operations- they rode on the back of T-34s.

German tanks might have had incredible firepower (that 88 high velocity gun was a beast) and tough armour but they were too few in number, and spent half their time bogged down or broken down.

The IS series of tanks was even more devastating, I have read many anecdotes about them, again, curved armour was used, they had good mobility and excellent protection for the crew. The close support version was also heavily armoured and caused a lot of mayhem in the East.

A lot of the successes the Germans enjoyed was because of their training and mindset- the 88mm cannon was a prime example. Absolutely devastating weapon in all theaters, and used to good effect. The British had a comparable weapon which was actually superior- the 17pdr but it was never deployed or used in that role or in those numbers. They wised up to it later on with the introduction of machines like the firefly but it was getting a bit late by then.

On yet another aside, Hitler should never have invaded Russia. Stalin was frightened of him, he could have got all the concessions he wanted by using diplomacy and threats, but he was too egotistical and went off against Russia despite the fact that countless armies have perished in the cold wastes there for all the same reasons.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Ollie1983