Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Yamaxanadu #41 Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:11 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View PostSchiltron, on 09 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

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
Hm... Funny... Tiger I was produced in number of 1300+... But destroyed and captured were 1700+... =)

Tigger3 #42 Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012
<p>

View PostYamaxanadu, on 10 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Hm... Funny... Tiger I was produced in number of 1300+... But destroyed and captured were 1700+...

Yes when people compare tank kills by the different sides they love to pick a few examples.

There is one notorious one floating around the internet which misses important quotes that the author put in his book (about Tiger I claimed unit kills).

The Tiger figures include those that were recovered and sent back to the factory for rebuilds (sometimes more than once), so having tanks counted more than once, the table does not include the allied tanks that were rebuilt or repaired and went back into service.

Edited by Tigger3, 12 May 2012 - 02:40 PM.


brad #43 Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:13 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25799 battles
  • 185
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010

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).
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.

I think you mean Centurion tanks. The Israeli's never had Challengers.

brad #44 Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:15 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25799 battles
  • 185
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010

View PostTigger3, on 10 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Erm what has that to do with the Challenger?

Nothing, people seem convinced the Israelis had Challengers. They had CENTURIONS. They nearly had Chieftains too, but we reneged on the deal.

Tigger3 #45 Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:59 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postbrad, on 12 May 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Nothing, people seem convinced the Israelis had Challengers. They had CENTURIONS. They nearly had Chieftains too, but we reneged on the deal.

Yes they paid for a large part of the development and were going to buy a large number, we ended up selling them more Cents.

I have been reading about the upgunning testing with 110mm guns (EXP-7, EXP-8 and EXP-14) to replace the L7 and M68 105mm guns (one was fitted and trialled on a Chieftain)

Quote

A DOD file in the National Archive, KEW, which tells about Israel's request for the 110mm gun in 1970 and 1971.
The FO refused to sell the gun as well. The file states that (in 1970) 3m Pounds Sterling (36m Pounds Sterling in today's money) were needed for the completion of the R and D.

Yet another shoot ourselves in the foot time.

tigerstreak #46 Posted 16 May 2012 - 10:30 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 23078 battles
  • 3,546
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    12-23-2010

View PostSotahullu, on 26 March 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Well there is something about that there was 20 years between western and eastearn tanks during those fights.  <_<
israeli centurions '44 design vs T55.... centurions came of better

Hammerbolt #47 Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:29 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33136 battles
  • 1,358
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Posttigerstreak, on 16 May 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

israeli centurions '44 design vs T55.... centurions came of better

Well... let's be honest. The T-55, which is a revamped T-54, is basically a 1945/46 design with improvements. And the Centurion Israel used was the up-gunned version with the awesome L7 gun... hardly a "1944" design...

Tigger3 #48 Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:02 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostHammerbolt, on 17 May 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Well... let's be honest. The T-55, which is a revamped T-54, is basically a 1945/46 design with improvements. And the Centurion Israel used was the up-gunned version with the awesome L7 gun... hardly a "1944" design...

Well lets be honest as well as the Centurion was a 1943 design first fielded in 1945, it was constantly updated the same as T54/55's were.

The Cent was upgunned with the L7 because of the T54/55 series, after the British temporarily acquired one to look at.

The T55's 100mm gun could knock out centurions, (many nations including the Israelis upgunned the T55 with the L7), the Arab Forces also had the T62, M48 Patton, Centurion, JS series, T34/85 and the various assault guns built on the JS and T34 chassis).

In terms of firepower on tanks on the opposing sides they were fairly well matched with the Israelis fielding Pattons, AMX13, Shermans as well as Cents. The Arab forces had a huge numerical superiority. They failed to co-ordinate actions so were destroyed piecemeal.

Edited by Tigger3, 17 May 2012 - 02:03 PM.


brad #49 Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:43 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25799 battles
  • 185
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
This should be available as a camo ;)


Posted Image

Tigger3 #50 Posted 24 May 2012 - 12:06 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostGrigteu, on 23 May 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Also, you can understand how WG "improved" Russian tanks. They clearly stated It is deliberate policy of WG that "quality" issues are not simulated. To be fair though I must to admit they had very little choice as otherwise nobody would use Soviet tanks in the game.

The Panther would be a pretty poor shower as well if they went of quality and reliability issues.

Yamaxanadu #51 Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:50 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View PostGrigteu, on 23 May 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

It is well know quote and Russkies had to deal with it. Well, they came up with explanation that "peace time" means nobody shoots at you. So, western tanks are good only when nobody shoots at you otherwise you want to get Soviet tanks. What a bag of Bollocks!
Do not look for other meanings other than that Soviet Marshal meant. Russians was very displeased with M4A2 and Valentine MK 9. They were much less useful against tanks, fortification and infantry compared to USSR tanks. As far as I know Soviet tank crews liked Churchills much more.

Tigger3 #52 Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:52 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostGrigteu, on 24 May 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Panther actively participated in the fighting. Many Soviet tanks could participate only in parade. Some of them could not do even that. T-44 was so bad that they did not even risk testing it in the fighting or showing on parade unlike Yanks (Pershing) or Brits (Comet/Centurion). And I am not talking about production issues.  

Reliability could be simulated as low health. Big gun, thick armour made of nonpenetretiym and ricochetium alloy would be balanced by notoriously low health. You must understand that Russian tank developers are amateurs and what they did at that time is to throw together as big gun as possible and as thick armour as possible hopping it would make good tank. It did not work reliability wise. But WG fixed that by throwing reliability out of the window while publicly mocking other nations tanks.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, bad tank is good tank.

The Panther took part in fighting but took a year and a half while being used in combat to reach 75% reliability (16% for first 6 months, up to 37% for next 6 months, last 6 months to get to 75% where it stayed).

My understanding with the T44 was that they did not wish to introduce another vehicle into production and service so late in the war due to training and spares issues. As far as the Soviets were concerned they had to tools to do the job against the decreasing amount of Axis armour. T44 became the post war interim between the T34 and T54.

Tigger3 #53 Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:55 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostYamaxanadu, on 24 May 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Do not look for other meanings other than that Soviet Marshal meant. Russians was very displeased with M4A2 and Valentine MK 9. They were much less useful against tanks, fortification and infantry compared to USSR tanks. As far as I know Soviet tank crews liked Churchills much more.

The vally was liked for armour and reliability, with 6 pounder (and soviet 57mm) it was ok and deemed to be a light tank (much better than Soviet light tanks), they did not like its slow speed so much (common to most British tanks they had).

JoeDynamite #54 Posted 26 May 2012 - 05:02 PM

    Corporal

  • Banned
  • 26346 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
Western Post WW2 totally outclassed soviet/russian tanks .

-Perfect design,protection,firepower,electronics,crew.

Soviet tanks are good as cheap target practice for Western gunners.

Tigger3 #55 Posted 26 May 2012 - 11:35 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostArtillerY_InbounD, on 26 May 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Western Post WW2 totally outclassed soviet/russian tanks . -Perfect design,protection,firepower,electronics,crew. Soviet tanks are good as cheap target practice for Western gunners.

All I can say is its a good job NATO never actually came to blows with the Warsaw Pact, both sides had good and bad kit. Doctrine and training properly, never got tested by either side.

Schiltron #56 Posted 29 May 2012 - 08:17 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 56231 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostTigger3, on 24 May 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

The Panther took part in fighting but took a year and a half while being used in combat to reach 75% reliability (16% for first 6 months, up to 37% for next 6 months, last 6 months to get to 75% where it stayed).

My understanding with the T44 was that they did not wish to introduce another vehicle into production and service so late in the war due to training and spares issues. As far as the Soviets were concerned they had to tools to do the job against the decreasing amount of Axis armour. T44 became the post war interim between the T34 and T54.

the ammount of Axis armor was INCREASING till the end of the war...

Germany could increase tank production till the end of the war... soviet reached their peak tank production in 1942 Germany in 1944...

German tank strength during the direct fight with soviet
22. Jun 1941 5,262
01. Jan 1942 4,896
01. Jan 1943 5,648
01. Jan 1944 5,266
01. Jan 1945 6,284

production
1941 3,256
1942 4,278
1943 5,966
1944 9,161
1945 1,098 (till war end)

Soviet production (based on russian numbers)
1941 6,274
1942 24,639
1943 19,959
1944 16,975
1945 4384 (till war end)

The only reason why the T-44 did not went on large scale production in 1945 were design problems resulting in severe theething and especially the new powertrain.
BTW the soviet themself did not feel that the T-44 could match the Panther but they did come pretty close with a vehicle that weight only 56% of a Panther.

JoeDynamite #57 Posted 01 June 2012 - 09:13 AM

    Corporal

  • Banned
  • 26346 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
Tigger they did ... look old M1 Abrams model crushed in Iraq soviet made T-55/62/72/few 80 . (Well russians as usually make excuses that these tanks were "monkey models" ) They simple cant face the truth that their weaponry is inferior..... F-15 vs Migs/Su (103:0)  and yes all were "Monkey models" ........

Centurion wipped the floor with T-55/62/IS-3 (amazing tank used by arabs as a pill box..... )

Challenger slaughtered tons of T- tanks aswell.

Tigger3 #58 Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:39 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostArtillerY_InbounD, on 01 June 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Tigger they did ... look old M1 Abrams model crushed in Iraq soviet made T-55/62/72/few 80 . (Well russians as usually make excuses that these tanks were "monkey models" ) They simple cant face the truth that their weaponry is inferior..... F-15 vs Migs/Su (103:0)  and yes all were "Monkey models" ........

Centurion wipped the floor with T-55/62/IS-3 (amazing tank used by arabs as a pill box..... )

Challenger slaughtered tons of T- tanks aswell.

Yes the latest varients of Western Tanks faced very old Soviet designs in Iraq, (the majority of T55 were actually Chinese T59 the T72 were Polish hulls without the improved armour, power traverse, etc and were firing obsolete AP rounds that were only good for training, they were not the Soviet built and equipped models).

The Iraqis also never had the full gamut of Soviet doctrine (they never bothered with it at all really), massed artillery and airpower launched with massed troop and tank support.

Poorly maintained and equipped aircraft that were not modernised v the latest Western kit etc.

The Arabs also fielded Soviet, other ex Warsaw Pact manufactured kit along with Chinese and older Western kit against the Iraqis and did very well don't forget.

The Arabs also had Centurions and other Western tanks, its telling that the Israeli's tended to fight better with theirs because of their training and tactics, the Arabs failed to co-ordinate their assaults every time.

The Egyptian air defences hammered the IAF while trying to prevent the crossing of the Suez Canal, Sagger's cost the Israelis heavily in tanks.

So as to what I actually said

Quote

All I can say is its a good job NATO never actually came to blows with the Warsaw Pact, both sides had good and bad kit. Doctrine and training properly, never got tested by either side.

NATO and Warsaw Pact coming to blows - not third rate wannabee regional powers equipped with propaganda bravado but little actual fighting ability and prowess.

Tigger3 #59 Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:43 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostSchiltron, on 29 May 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

the ammount of Axis armor was INCREASING till the end of the war...

Germany could increase tank production till the end of the war... soviet reached their peak tank production in 1942 Germany in 1944...

German tank strength during the direct fight with soviet
22. Jun 1941 5,262
01. Jan 1942 4,896
01. Jan 1943 5,648
01. Jan 1944 5,266
01. Jan 1945 6,284

production
1941 3,256
1942 4,278
1943 5,966
1944 9,161
1945 1,098 (till war end)

Soviet production (based on russian numbers)
1941 6,274
1942 24,639
1943 19,959
1944 16,975
1945 4384 (till war end)

The only reason why the T-44 did not went on large scale production in 1945 were design problems resulting in severe theething and especially the new powertrain.
BTW the soviet themself did not feel that the T-44 could match the Panther but they did come pretty close with a vehicle that weight only 56% of a Panther.

They were being built faster but it was not increasing the amount in service as they were also being knocked out faster, so the actual combat strength was decreasing.

Most people seem to gloss over that minor point or forget it completely.

Scaria #60 Posted 01 June 2012 - 11:55 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18114 battles
  • 387
  • Member since:
    10-13-2011

View PostArtillerY_InbounD, on 01 June 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Tigger they did ... look old M1 Abrams model crushed in Iraq soviet made T-55/62/72/few 80 . (Well russians as usually make excuses that these tanks were "monkey models" ) They simple cant face the truth that their weaponry is inferior..... F-15 vs Migs/Su (103:0)  and yes all were "Monkey models" ........

Centurion wipped the floor with T-55/62/IS-3 (amazing tank used by arabs as a pill box..... )

Challenger slaughtered tons of T- tanks aswell.

Iraq never had T-80....

and talking about the T-72.... please you really consider the "Lion of Babylon" firing Steel rod shells as a T-72???

Yes, T54/55, Type59 /69 and Lions were crushed by M1A1 and challegers of course. Don't you think a T-90 will crush old M60, Chieftains and 80" Abrams?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users