Jump to content


Why Soviet tanks outperformed by us/uk/french tanks after ww2?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Hammerbolt #21 Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 32519 battles
  • 1,356
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostTigger3, on 15 April 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Most tank fires suffered in combat was by the ammunition catching fire after a penetrating hit, the Soviet tanks were as prone to this as any other countrys.

True, nothing you can do there, but having a gasoline tank increased the chances, and it did cut down on range.

View PostTigger3, on 15 April 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

BTW many countries used diesel engines as well but petrol was the prevalent fuel.

If you are refering to the japanese tanks... well...

View PostTigger3, on 15 April 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Not every Soviet tank had a diesel engine either.

If you're refering to the BTs... yeah, my bad,,,

Tigger3 #22 Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13563 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostHammerbolt, on 15 April 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

True, nothing you can do there, but having a gasoline tank increased the chances, and it did cut down on range.



If you are refering to the japanese tanks... well...



If you're refering to the BTs... yeah, my bad,,,

The British did with the Matilda II, the Valentine MkII onwards also had diesels. The British trialed various diesels on others but none they had could develop the required power hence the reason they chose to use aero engines for the majority of their tanks.

French FCM 36 1936, SOMUA S 35 was to be upgraded in the S40 configuration but the French capitulation put paid to it.

The Italians used them in their Mediums.

Just a few to show you it was not the odd vehicle.

The Soviet BT series, T26, T28, T35 all had petrol engines. The T34 and KV1 were their first diesels.

monthey_ #23 Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32301 battles
  • 580
  • [MAROC] MAROC
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
most of the arab tanks were taken out by Apache helicopters btw rather than tank vs tank slugfest

Tigger3 #24 Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13563 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postmonthey_, on 25 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

most of the arab tanks were taken out by Apache helicopters btw rather than tank vs tank slugfest

When and where? Israelis did not have Apaches.

A little more information will go a long way.

Hammerbolt #25 Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 32519 battles
  • 1,356
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Postmonthey_, on 25 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

most of the arab tanks were taken out by Apache helicopters btw rather than tank vs tank slugfest

That's 1991 Gulf War...

Querulous #26 Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29345 battles
  • 1,483
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011
Likewise, German tanks had to be designed less efficently due to lack of rubber. Things like this make straight comparisons extremely worrisome.

Cuddly_Spider #27 Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:16 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 28150 battles
  • 2,672
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View Postmonthey_, on 25 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

most of the arab tanks were taken out by Apache helicopters btw rather than tank vs tank slugfest

True, but since then Apache helicopters have started to demonstrate their shortcomings. You might rather enjoy this article on the matter. Tanks are here to stay. There will probably be an "anti tank tank", perhaps a rocket tank TD if technology continues along the route it's taking.

Zythius #28 Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7010 battles
  • 705
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011
Some of the conflicts after WW2 has seen a lot of battles between where old faced newer tanks. So the original post is missing the point. I like to look at tank age like this:

- The age of it's basic design (hull, etc).
- The age of it's modules.

The Abrams for instance - it is by no means a new tank (designed in the late 70s). However, the west has traditionally had a lot more advanced electronics and special armor fitted to the tanks, and that really matters the most. The 1990s - 2000s wars in the middle east are good examples of this. In those conflicts the Abrams faced T-54/55, T-62 and T-72. The latter was designed in the late 60s, and the two former were even older!

I don't know that much about the quality of Soviet tanks, but they are delivered in quantity. It would be interesting with a good documentary on the subject - the media is riddled with WW2 and present day tank comparisons, but not much else.

sheep6665 #29 Posted 28 April 2012 - 01:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8789 battles
  • 1,156
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011

View PostMuleMobile, on 08 April 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

But you still see the messed up tiering throughout the tree:
T5 PzIVa(1937) T-34/42(1940)
T5 StuGIII(1940) SU-85(1943)
T7 Tiger(1942) IS-2(1944) [IS-1(1943)]
T8 TigerII(1944) IS-3(barely 1945)

PzIV is not the PzIVa, its hull is taken from later versions and the top turret is kinda SF, PzIVa(1937) has got 20mm front armor, the one from the game has 80mm(like the PzKpfwIV aufs. H from 1943 and J from 1944). T-34/42 isn't from 1940, its modification from 1942(guess why it's called ~/42) so it seems the Germany have a tank from 1943-44 with science fiction turret and Russians have a counterpart from 1942 with almost historical modules(I'm not sure about the radios and last 76mm gun).
StuGIII from 1940 has 30mm front armor and KwK 75 mm StuK 37 L/24, in-game armor 80mm(SU-85 has 107mm gun which is kinda too big for it's size, so is L/70 for StuG, please note that in-game stug in stock version has 75mm L/43 mounted since 1942, its more of 1942-43 vehicle fighting versus 1943 one, both has non-historical weapons).
Tiger hasn't got long 88 in real life, IS-1/2 has it's historical weapon, the thing that makes PzVI weak is geometry of its armor. Also, TigerP is better than IS, most people agree that tier 7 heavy tanks are like TigerP/T29>IS>Tiger>AMX M4. That's only the general opinion, there are some in-game Tiger fans(there is also one M3 lee fan) and they're doing pretty well in it.
TigerII is only a year older than IS3, but actually tier 8 is balanced(except VKA) so I don't care about that.

After WW2, soviet designs were on-pair or even better than the western ones(T-64/72 with composite armor and 125mm gun with auto loader vs. M60 with RHA armor and 105mm gun with manual loading), simply in the Israelis crews was better than the Egyptian ones. Also, remember that war is not about 15v15 tank fighting but number1 vs. number2 of tanks, n1 vs. n2 of infantry/planes/etc. This numbers aren't equal, it's more of a attack-defense battles than the meeting ones, intelligence and commanders quality has a lot of influence if you want to anticipate the result, logistics also matters... and much more.

English is not my native language, sorry for mistakes.

koez #30 Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:12 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16321 battles
  • 91
  • Member since:
    12-11-2011

View Postmonthey_, on 25 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

most of the arab tanks were taken out by Apache helicopters btw rather than tank vs tank slugfest

In the arab israeli war (Yom Kippur War) 1973, the Challenger based tanks had a much longer shooting range than the  Soviet T-55 tanks (saw a documentary about this just a week ago on Discovery Channel).
The documentary claimed that the Syrian forces had basically 10 x more eq (T-55 and T-62 tanks if I remember) but a 1km shorter shooting range.
Due to the better gun and skill of the crews, Israel won, although only the Soviet tanks had a night vision capability which initially helped them.

Edited by koez, 09 May 2012 - 08:12 AM.


Schiltron #31 Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:21 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 55577 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostSotahullu, on 26 March 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

I should mention that Germans used tanks more carefully and organised them better so they had big .


And Soviet union was pretty screw up in training but they had to that so they could keep up with losses.

For example: Soviet unions gained and produced almost 22,000 tanks in '42. They lost 16,000 during the same year...

A widley unknown fact is that Germany destroyed more tanks during ww2 than the soviet could produce!

Based on russian archive numbers...

Total war production (light/medium/heavy tanks) 72,231
Total war loses 83,500

Russia survived only because of LandLease and the giant tank force in 1941 (June 1941 22,600 tanks)

Soviet tank looses/production(T34 production) by year
1941 20,500/6,274 (3,014)
1942 15,000/24,639 (12,553)
1943 22,400/19,959 (15,812)
1944 16,900/16,975 (14,773)
1945 8,700/4,384 (7,430)

during the war was a tank production ratio of 3:1 for the soviet... which again widely unknown droped from 5.6:1 in 1942 to 1.85:1 in 1944
during the war the Wehrmacht achived a tank exchange ratio of 1:4.4 tanks against the red army.. even in 1945 as Germany collapst the Wehrmacht reached 1:3

Hammerbolt #32 Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 32519 battles
  • 1,356
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Postkoez, on 09 May 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

In the arab israeli war (Yom Kippur War) 1973, the Challenger based tanks had a much longer shooting range than the  Soviet T-55 tanks (saw a documentary about this just a week ago on Discovery Channel).

You mean Centurion. Challenger didn't exist yet...

And that "maximum range" was used only vs static or slo-moving targets; in battle, the range would drop. Ofc, the T-55/62s range would also drop...

Schiltron #33 Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:22 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 55577 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View Postmonthey_, on 25 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

most of the arab tanks were taken out by Apache helicopters btw rather than tank vs tank slugfest

thats completely untrue.... most tanks were destroyed in very short steel clashes...

like a Iraqi tank batallion comander claimed after the war... the weeks of air attacks cost his batallion about 6 tanks... a 15min engagment with M1 completely whipped his batallion from the landscape ...

air attacks are hugly overrated... like the lessons on the balkan has teached the airforce fans/supporters were the serbian tanks which were destroyed in huge numbers by air attack suddenly drove out of Kosovo untouched and in huge numbers as the war was over..
Destroying tanks in huge numbers means dirty work for your own tank force..

Sotahullu #34 Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15540 battles
  • 684
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010
Seriously speaking, Russian tank we're much better for some points but during '70-80 they started to lose that edge as the western countries started to catch up and learn they're mistakes.

Here's the thing: When Russian's found a mistake: They repaired and improved the tank. When USA or Brits found mistake, they never actually do something about it. To but it more simply: Russians wanted some reliable, effective tanks that are easy to make while having capacity to improve. West other hand wanted tanks that was most advanced tank of it's time at the expence of cost, time and manufacturing.

So Russian tanks we're for long run and also they we're simple and by all means, made for simplicuty. Western tanks we're made for shorter times.

And by now you notice that my sayings are little bit of: Well, this was "basic" idea but because western tanks we're expensive, they found a way to prolong they're use. For example: M60 Patton was basicly M47 because M60 was basicly an upgrade! You also could say that Russians did make same to this date: They have been using tanks models that have been almost exactly same! T-54 could any upgrade they had for any other tank model.

Edit: And yeah, Air attacks are pretty over estimated ;)

Edited by Sotahullu, 09 May 2012 - 06:14 PM.


Tigger3 #35 Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:03 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13563 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostSchiltron, on 09 May 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

thats completely untrue.... most tanks were destroyed in very short steel clashes...

like a Iraqi tank batallion comander claimed after the war... the weeks of air attacks cost his batallion about 6 tanks... a 15min engagment with M1 completely whipped his batallion from the landscape ...

air attacks are hugly overrated... like the lessons on the balkan has teached the airforce fans/supporters were the serbian tanks which were destroyed in huge numbers by air attack suddenly drove out of Kosovo untouched and in huge numbers as the war was over..
Destroying tanks in huge numbers means dirty work for your own tank force..

I was helping do BDA in Kosovo after we went in as part of NATO, yes airpower was severely lacking in that conflict

We had to search and clear areas of claimed damaged equipment, we found a single M1974 SPG (2S1) that after investigation had actually suffered an internal explosion due to crew carelessness (it had been reported numerous times in the press that it was a tank destroyed by NATO).
We also recovered an M32 ARRV that was left after it broke down (it was towed noisily by a ChARRV faster than it had ever driven through Pristina).
One location we cleared had received 27 air raids, all we found were expended aluminium shell cases from artillery. No damaged or destroyed kit.

In our area despite the claims in the press of masses of Serbian military losses and damage that was all that was found.

Edited by Tigger3, 09 May 2012 - 07:04 PM.


Schiltron #36 Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:59 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 55577 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostSotahullu, on 09 May 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Seriously speaking, Russian tank we're much better for some points but during '70-80 they started to lose that edge as the western countries started to catch up and learn they're mistakes.

Here's the thing: When Russian's found a mistake: They repaired and improved the tank. When USA or Brits found mistake, they never actually do something about it. To but it more simply: Russians wanted some reliable, effective tanks that are easy to make while having capacity to improve. West other hand wanted tanks that was most advanced tank of it's time at the expence of cost, time and manufacturing.

So Russian tanks we're for long run and also they we're simple and by all means, made for simplicuty. Western tanks we're made for shorter times.

And by now you notice that my sayings are little bit of: Well, this was "basic" idea but because western tanks we're expensive, they found a way to prolong they're use. For example: M60 Patton was basicly M47 because M60 was basicly an upgrade! You also could say that Russians did make same to this date: They have been using tanks models that have been almost exactly same! T-54 could any upgrade they had for any other tank model.

Edit: And yeah, Air attacks are pretty over estimated ;)

Thats again nonsens....

there are no other tank with a very long lifetime in mind than the Leopard2 for example. It is completely focused on extrem quick repairs by modular design and a huge grow up potential from first drawing... show me a other tank were the engine/transmission/cooling fan block could be replaced by a well trained crew (recovery tank and Leo2 crew) in less than 10minutes... the gunbarrel of the Leo 2 could be exchanged in 15minutes.
Loking at the improvments of the Leo´s they constantly react on changing enemy weaponary...

In the 1980´s the red Army was tank technology already lightyears behind Nato ...
Leopard 2 entered service in 1979
M1 entered service 28. Feb 1980
Challenger entered service in 1983

at this time the T-72 was the most modern tank in the red Army... a tank the M60, Chieftain, Leo1 could handel
T-80 production started in 1976 but early versions had no ERA (first time 1985 as a reaction to Leo2 M1 and Challengers gun perfromance) weak 1000hp gas turbin no missle fire capability. In fact the whole T80 improvment program was a reaction on the tanks the Nato send into service... at this point they already droped hoplessly behind in the thenology race ... many components take years to develop at the time the Leo2 and M1 entered service the technology advance of the west was minimum 10years over the soviets..

sheep6665 #37 Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:29 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8789 battles
  • 1,156
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011

View PostSchiltron, on 10 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

there are no other tank with a very long lifetime in mind than the Leopard2 for example. It is completely focused on extrem quick repairs by modular design and a huge grow up potential from first drawing... show me a other tank were the engine/transmission/cooling fan block could be replaced by a well trained crew (recovery tank and Leo2 crew) in less than 10minutes... the gunbarrel of the Leo 2 could be exchanged in 15minutes.
Loking at the improvments of the Leo´s they constantly react on changing enemy weaponary...
While I agree to the Leo part, the fact is, that  when you look at T55 and when you look at the T90 you'll see that its mostly the same design, that was modified and improved through years, the same is with M46->M47->M48->M60, while, when you look at the Leo1 and Leo2 you'll see 2 different tanks, that whats he wants to say.

View PostSchiltron, on 10 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

In the 1980´s the red Army was tank technology already lightyears behind Nato ...
Leopard 2 entered service in 1979
M1 entered service 28. Feb 1980
Challenger entered service in 1983

at this time the T-72 was the most modern tank in the red Army... a tank the M60, Chieftain, Leo1 could handel
T-80 production started in 1976 but early versions had no ERA (first time 1985 as a reaction to Leo2 M1 and Challengers gun perfromance) weak 1000hp gas turbin no missle fire capability. In fact the whole T80 improvment program was a reaction on the tanks the Nato send into service... at this point they already droped hoplessly behind in the thenology race ... many components take years to develop at the time the Leo2 and M1 entered service the technology advance of the west was minimum 10years over the soviets..
Well in fact T-72 was far more modern than M60, Chieftan and Leo1, it's from 1973 also, remember about T64 which was also far more modern than NATO tanks(most of western designs has steel armor at the time, while T64 and T72 has composite armor, 125mm guns to the NATOs 105mm, autoloader etc.). They lost their superiority in 80's(which was somewhat caused by economical difficulties) but it's not like soviet tanks were obsolete before. They weren't successful in combat but it was mostly caused by the crews(Israelis crews were better than the Arabian ones) and tactics. You know, Shermans with short 75mm could destroy Tigers2 if the crew was stupid/inexperienced/bad trained/drunk/etc, and it was used on the unsecured city crossroad when they could flank them without problems.

Tigger3 #38 Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:45 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13563 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostSchiltron, on 10 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:


Challenger entered service in 1983



Which Challenger, I will assume you mean Challenger 1 which was forced on the British Army as a way of saving Vickers (the tanks had been ordered for Iran as Shir2 but due to revolution they could not be paid for or delivered).

It put the final nail in the coffin of the MBT80 and Chieftain 900 projects for the British Army.

Challenger II is a different vehicle that entered service in the late 90's

koez #39 Posted 10 May 2012 - 11:46 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16321 battles
  • 91
  • Member since:
    12-11-2011

View PostTigger3, on 10 May 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Which Challenger, I will assume you mean Challenger 1 which was forced on the British Army as a way of saving Vickers (the tanks had been ordered for Iran as Shir2 but due to revolution they could not be paid for or delivered).

It put the final nail in the coffin of the MBT80 and Chieftain 900 projects for the British Army.

Challenger II is a different vehicle that entered service in the late 90's

It was Israeli's Centurion "Shot Kal". Here is a clip from the documentary: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=n3zGWMPhxS0

Edited by koez, 10 May 2012 - 11:49 AM.


Tigger3 #40 Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13563 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postkoez, on 10 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

It was Israeli's Centurion "Shot Kal". Here is a clip from the documentary: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=n3zGWMPhxS0

Erm what has that to do with the Challenger?




9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users