Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Schiltron #61 Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:15 PM

    Corporal

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

View PostScaria, on 01 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

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?

even high tech ammo would not have helped the Iraqis because modern western tanks have much better optics and sensors allowing them to pick out targets at much greater ranges

in Greece tank trails the M1 Leo2 Challenger2 Leclerc faced top of the line east europen tank stuff... T-84 and T-80UE

the operational and technical score board

1. Leo2 A5
2. M1A2
3. Leclerc
4. Challenger 2E
5. T-84
6. T-80UE

shooting score
first hit %

Leo2 over 80%
Leclerc 65%
T-84 47%
Challenger 2E  40%

T-80UE and M1A2 numbers were not allowed to be published but it is known that the M1 performed on Leo2 level and T-80UE on T-84 level

There is a reason why top of the line (at the date of the greece tank trails) T-80 variations come out last and second last..

Yamaxanadu #62 Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:28 PM

    Major General

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

View PostSchiltron, on 01 June 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

even high tech ammo would not have helped the Iraqis because modern western tanks have much better optics and sensors allowing them to pick out targets at much greater ranges
Add here that T series was equipped with modern fire control system only in late 80s when T-90 was introduced... And even T-90 was under-performing in this area  until new version of late 2000s were introduced for new prototype T-99 "Armata". The only strong point of T-90 now is high survival ability with all equipment (well, its accuracy according to Russian tests is 97% higher compared to T-80 series but only with experienced crew).

Kyphe #63 Posted 03 June 2012 - 03:16 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16102 battles
  • 2,115
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostSchiltron, on 01 June 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:



even high tech ammo would not have helped the Iraqis because modern western tanks have much better optics and sensors allowing them to pick out targets at much greater ranges

in Greece tank trails the M1 Leo2 Challenger2 Leclerc faced top of the line east europen tank stuff... T-84 and T-80UE

the operational and technical score board

1. Leo2 A5
2. M1A2
3. Leclerc
4. Challenger 2E
5. T-84
6. T-80UE

shooting score
first hit %

Leo2 over 80%
Leclerc 65%
T-84 47%
Challenger 2E  40%

T-80UE and M1A2 numbers were not allowed to be published but it is known that the M1 performed on Leo2 level and T-80UE on T-84 level

There is a reason why top of the line (at the date of the greece tank trails) T-80 variations come out last and second last..

C2E suffered barrel fouling due to being supplied with out-dated surplus ammo made for the chally-1 which had been modified for chally-2 service in a rush to boost stocks of ammo in the run up to the gulf war.



Tigger3 #64 Posted 03 June 2012 - 06:01 AM

    Lieutenant

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

View PostKyphe, on 03 June 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

C2E suffered barrel fouling due to being supplied with out-dated surplus ammo made for the chally-1 which had been modified for chally-2 service in a rush to boost stocks of ammo in the run up to the gulf war.

The stuff was so bad it was withdrawn from stocks after the trials and replaced.

Some extra info from Janes Defence

Quote

Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger 2E, 69.19%. Next was the T-84 and last the T-80UE.

The Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during hunter/killer target engagements.

The German 1,500hp MTU EuroPowerPack was fitted in both the Leclerc and the Challenger 2E and these two vehicles had the best cruising range and lower fuel consumption.

The T-80U had the best mobility and reliability.

Some shooting results:

Leopard 2A5: ~80%
Leclerc: 65% targets hit
T-84: 47 % targets hit
Challenger-2: 40 % targets hit

No data for the T-80UE and M1A2. The Challenger-II did not use proper ammo, while the T-80UE and T-84 used practice rounds 3P31, which corresponds to BM15 at below 1.5 km but become unpredictable after 2 kms. The Abrams could not fire practice ammo and had to wait for 3 days before real ones were brought.

Also note that it is targets hit and has no bearing on penetration ability of the weapon systems. The testing was also done in 1998/99 so does not compare with the present equipment levels of the vehicles.

Edited by Tigger3, 03 June 2012 - 06:34 AM.


Kyphe #65 Posted 03 June 2012 - 10:14 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16102 battles
  • 2,115
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
Ofc when considering the accuracy of the L30 gun on the chally 2 you have to remove the advantage of the rifled barrel when firing sub caliber fin stabalised munitions as they deliberatly stop the round spinning, rifled barrels give much grater accuracy when firing HESH which us brits love and will probably keep now that they have cancelled the smoothbore rearming due to probelms with the single piece ammo stowage

JoeDynamite #66 Posted 08 June 2012 - 10:08 PM

    Corporal

  • Banned
  • 24859 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
It dont suprise me that Abrams scored so high ...that beast was designed with one purpose ...to crush communist armor with a minimal casualties.

T-Series always lacked in optics,fire control systems,tracking systems and all that fancy cr*p .

I am not afraid that some T-90MS could replace Leo,Abrams in the terms of quality.

Anthoniusii #67 Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23970 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
1st we must determine what outperform means.
I explain my self.
When a weapon system gets in the designing phase ,designers must deside what compromises
they must do from the imaginary perfect performance.
The designs base on varius factors that might be:
Strategic and combat tactics of the user.
Ground/areas that this weapon system will be used.
Industrial capabillity of the user inorder to produse that weapon system.
The level of training/expirience of the crews that will use that weapon system.
Long and short turn upkeep costs.
Production costs.

After WWII west returned to its old tradition that it had in medieval times.
Few/well armed/heavily armored but expensive.
Soviets though continued the "steppe" cavalry tactics on open plains.
Many/average armed/average armored/ cheap.
Soviets had worst economy than west and there for numbers continued to be crusial instead "quality".
But even if quality would be avalable to soviets earlier their tanks would not be much different that were in the past.
The soviet warefare tactic needed thousands of tanks that should be fast,agile and with the suport of also thousands artilery pieces
would over come that enemy defence lines.
US mainly followed the WWII German theory of armored vehicles.
The tanks should have very powerfull guns, should be heavily armored because they would be used mainly in slow advance or under defensive
prospective.
US theorists saw the killing rate of Tigers and Panthers that over comed 30/1 of soviet tanks in many cases.
They believed that if after the 1st nuclear strike the remaining tanks shopuld be strong enough to delay the soviet "hordes"
untill airforce would interfear!
That was the other main difference between east and west that reflected on tank designs.
West designed aircrafts and later helicopters as tank destroyers while Soviets relied on their huge artilery force.

Soviet tanks were always one step ahead in bigger guns.
When T-54 apeared with its 100mm gun US still had 76mm guns in service (not experimental).
When US came with a tank armed with a 90mm gun soviets seamed to lose some of their advandage.
But when T-62 apeared in middle east (for 1st time) with its 115mm west was shocked!
All western tanks could be destroyed with a single shot as Isrealy tests proved.
The 105mm L7 was the best answer for many years and west was shocked again when T-64 apeared with its early short barrel
125mm gun and a fully operatioanl autoloader!!!
French were tested such devices but their autoloaders remained with low fanctionality and that was the main reason why AMX-30 had not such a device!
MBT-70 project gave a 120mm gun (the famous german one) but British were already had such gun that used two piece ammo over their Chieftain tank.
British even when they designed Chalenger 1/2 remained loyal to their "infantry suport" tanks.
Chieftains and Chalengers were some kind of chivalric knights with slow horses and heavy armor that they would try to hunt down steppe horsearchers!
In 1977 a major NATO exersice proved that Chieftains had no chance of survival despite that their armor could absorve 20% more hits than Leo 2A1!

Question:
Then why west tanks were prevailed in the last wars?
Answer:
They were not always prevailed but 99% they did.
When soviets designed their tanks , they did according to their warfare tactics needs!
But the users of those tanks were not soviets, they had not such huge arilery nore the huge numbers of tanks.
Syrians and Iraqis defeated Israely tanks but their crews had no idea how to over come a antitank ditch!!
They lost douzens of tanks in that ditch waiting something that never came!
Israel in all of its wars had much better airforce.
Even when Egyptians destoyed hunderds of tanks in Sinai with their new antitank missiles airforce gave Israelys the solution plus
the high moralle -through training-of the israely tank crews!
US tried to use heavy tanks in Vietnam but jungle -like urban centers-are leathal traps for them.
Chinese found that too when invaded Vietnam few years after.

Question:
Iraq was the 4th larger army globalwide with the 3rd most powerfull artilery on the planet and the 6th stronger airforce. Why did it lose easily?
Why its tanks were overcomed that quicly?
Answer:
Iraqi soldiers fought since 1981. They were tiered by the constant wars. That is why they surrendered so fast in the 1st hours.
Iraq airforce was in lack of spare parts thanks to the recent embargo that started before that war started.
Finally UN troops gathered an ammasing number of 2500 aircrafts and lauched over 1200 long range missiles against troops that had no defence against such weapons.
Instead of clasic artilery UN troops used 1000 miles range missiles the destroyed the Iraqi tanks.
When Desert stror started over 80% of the Iraqi tanks were already destroyed.

Lessons work though.
US tank designers knew that inorder their designs to last longer cammouflage nets were crusial.
In fact west europe developed douzens of different patterns on that objects.

After Iraq war ,Serbia was the next victim.
But Serbia had already bought cammo nets from a Greek company that developed the best commo nets wordwide
based on a US pattern.
US airforce claimed 300 tanks destroyed in Kosovo but when truth revealed there were only 12 tanks and 18 apcs destroyed.

Conclusion.
Its not a tank that loses a war. Its the user that can not use a tank with the same way its original designer made it for.

tigerstreak #68 Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:44 AM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 22954 battles
  • 3,546
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    12-23-2010
initial ww2 shortcoming of soviet tanks, in part due to the training +tactics
which rapidly improved

Yamaxanadu #69 Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:30 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011
@Anthoniusii
Well said. My boss was commander of USSR tank formation (20 tanks) and he described basic tactics of USSR armored forces as:
1. Plummet enemy positions with Reactive Artillery up to 20 km depth (and send around 20-50 tons of explosives on each sq km)
2. Send mass waves of tanks with AA units (both gunned and missiles) and IFVs to claim enemy positions
3. Plummet enemy positions with SPGs that are right in front of wave of tanks to soften defense even more

It's simple minded tactics that based more on brute force of superior artillery and masses of vehicles. T-series was designed this way. To battle what will be left after Artillery did its job. USSR tanks were designed mostly not as anti-tank vehicles (because 80% of AL ammunition were HE shells) but rather as infantry support (actually USSR infantry were equipped with more effective AT weapons).

Anthoniusii #70 Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:53 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23970 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
Soviets were far ahead from NATO in many war aspets:
Anti tank weapons/missiles
Naval missiles (styx was the 1st of its kind while Exocet was the 1st west one but it use expanded only when Hellenic Navy added them on its FPBs).
Tank guns.
Antiaircraft guns and missiles.

Those aspets were crusial because NATO was far ahead in :
Tank accuracy
Aircrafts
Composite tank armor
Helicopters etc...

Each side has its own advandages.
But when someone wants to buy a weapon system that was not designed by him then must chose wisely
for that weapon system that fits to his needs. Unfortunatly politics make things even more comlicated.
But here are some examples:
The last decade Hellenic armed forces chosed soviet weapon systems that were more adavnced in their category
from the NATO ones that were that time in service.
Greece bought Tor M1 to escort its new Leo 2 HELL (the best tank in service today) following the soviet tactic.
Also bought russian antitank missiles (Kornet) because today they are the best in service.
hellenic navy bought huge hovecraft from Russia and Ucraine that NATO had not such a weapon system
simply because Greece needs to sent reinforcements in Aegean sea fast.

Tanks as weapon systems are not things that operate individually.
Behind each weapon system there is a huge number of other systems that follow.
So when judge a weapon system we must be sure that we do it under the proper way.
If you want to judge a T-72 you must find a tank that is in the same category (same weight, time of development, similar use).
Only that way our conclusions will be accurate.
You can not compare the 65t Leo2 Hell with T-90 of the 49t!
T-90 will try to use its agility to place its self in a advance position and hope that its 125mm shell will penetrate Leo's armor.
Leo 2 HELL with its new EMES system with wind indicator will try to reveal T-90 early, aim it and shot it from a distance of 6kms! where manuevres
of T-90 wont force the Leo's turret in extreme rotations.
But even if T-90 will come closer Leo 2 Hell will try to rely on its heavy armor hoping that it wont be penetrated (Greek army in order to accept the 1st batch of tanks, the factory provided two turrets
and were shot by L-44 120mm gun that failed tp penetrate them)!!!
You see that each school of designers rely on different things. But always remember. No matter how well an armor is weapons always prevail.
That is proven in entire history that weapons and armors are in constant competition.

Spiediens #71 Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5887 battles
  • 747
  • Member since:
    12-01-2011

View PostYamaxanadu, on 26 March 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Arab-Israeli wars are not useful for comparison since there are some age difference between tanks (and lack of tank commanders on Arab side). I think Korean War can be example (even though North Korea lack trained tank crews).


T-34-76 was superior in 1940-1941, average in 1942, barely acceptable in 1943.
T-34-85 was average in 1944-1945.
T-44 was good in 1944 but lack numbers.
T-54 was great in 1944 but have problems in design and was in prototype stage.
KV-1 was superior in 1940-1941, so-so in 1942, almost useless in 1943.
IS-1 was average in 1943.
IS-2 was good in 1944.
IS-3 was superior in 1945.
T-34-76 was only completely superior to the Pz III, the Pz IV F2 easily outclassed it's gun.
T-34-85 came too late to influence the war, Germany's faith was sealed in 1943.
T-44, as you said, was meaningless due to low numbers.
T-54 would still be average if it ever got produced during WW2, taking in account a upcoming generation of German medium tanks(Panther II, E-50)
KV-1 was superior to Panzer III, the Panzer IV and Stug III was able to penetrate it's thick armor.
IS-1 was basically a beefed up T-34-85.
IS-2 was obviously a step up, but it's 122mm gun had a very long reload speed and the IS-1/IS-2 had weak turret armour(I've seen many War-Time pictures of knocked out IS tanks, and many shots were taken right into the turret).
IS-3 never saw combat in WW2, it was only used in the victory parade in Berlin

Edited by Spiediens, 01 September 2012 - 07:31 PM.


Voidlord #72 Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:55 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6881 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    07-27-2011
Soviet tanks had one fatal flaw. It is a biggy as well, due to the soviets mounting relatively big guns in a small turret, e.g T-34, T-72 (all of them really) they could not physically store ammo in the turret due to lack of room in said turret because of the big guns recoil. They would store the ammo in the hull instead making them phenomenally easy to destroy. One example is the First gulf war, Abrams/Challengers v T-72s (not fair I know) the coalition tank crews just aimed for the hull and BOOM

Mark_Johnston_MJ #73 Posted 10 November 2016 - 01:57 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    11-08-2016
Don't forget too guys that many of the Soviet designed tanks were export models of the societ tanks which were not to the same quality or standard or Soviet vehicles. Unfortunately I can not provide any stats for differences

DumbNumpty #74 Posted 11 November 2016 - 06:30 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25088 battles
  • 1,049
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015

View PostYamaxanadu, on 26 March 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Arab-Israeli wars are not useful for comparison since there are some age difference between tanks (and lack of tank commanders on Arab side). I think Korean War can be example (even though North Korea lack trained tank crews).

T-34-76 was superior in 1940-1941, average in 1942, barely acceptable in 1943.
T-34-85 was average in 1944-1945.
T-44 was good in 1944 but lack numbers.
T-54 was great in 1944 but have problems in design and was in prototype stage.
KV-1 was superior in 1940-1941, so-so in 1942, almost useless in 1943.
IS-1 was average in 1943.
IS-2 was good in 1944.
IS-3 was superior in 1945.

 

I would say that is about spot on.
Historically have a look at at the figures in 1943 in a supposed win by the Russians! https://en.wikipedia..._of_Prokhorovka
https://en.wikipedia...le_of_Raseiniai
https://en.wikipedia..._of_Brody_(1941)
https://en.wikipedia...ration_Goodwood

The problem is the German tanks are actually a tier higher than comparative era tanks.
I keep hoping they will release the MBT 70 & Euro panzer (german amx 30) and some nerfs will allow those tanks to drop a tier with new T10 additions.
The Grille is a complete windup for me as it totally breaks the class characteristics of a TD in my mind but guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank would be too much also but at least something more realistic.  

Edited by DumbNumpty, 13 November 2016 - 07:37 AM.


Punisher_GR_ #75 Posted 28 November 2016 - 06:57 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 37939 battles
  • 194
  • [GRTG] GRTG
  • Member since:
    09-15-2011

Soviet tanks was not crap tank , people forget the fact that Soviet Union was really ahead of other nation on this matter the problem was Communism lack commanders and crews that make huge impact on performance and don't forget the first time Germans see KVs was shocked if you don't belive google it abit check the storys of German crews you can find plenty Documentarys even in youtube rushing with 40+ tanks to stop KV in the time Germans use Pz II and III just insane they could penetrate them.

 

Going forward Arabs had this same problem don't forget ofc Soviet help Egypt later and you see what happen And for the Syria vs Israeli ofc Syria had the adventage of the new tanks from USSR but lack of the crew training was disaster , fact is Soviet tanks was the real deal and use top edge eguipment like night vision and Israelis don't even had them.

 

Korea war Ok lets check it out North use T34-85 and US Chaffee later on bring the Pershings from Japan but Chaffee was unable to stop North take almost entire Korea.

 

USSR had always reliable tanks and we can speak in this matter with 1000 threads but the fact remain before WWII start USSR was ahead of others and keep it very quiet,they even visit German Tank factorys before the war start because of friendly relation ship that they had and they ask Germans you have only this tanks and smile on them,Germans was shocked in the war.



keyres #76 Posted 29 December 2017 - 11:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33207 battles
  • 1,109
  • [F-T-R] F-T-R
  • Member since:
    12-26-2010

View PostSpiediens, on 01 September 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

T-34-76 was only completely superior to the Pz III, the Pz IV F2 easily outclassed it's gun.
T-34-85 came too late to influence the war, Germany's faith was sealed in 1943.
T-44, as you said, was meaningless due to low numbers.
T-54 would still be average if it ever got produced during WW2, taking in account a upcoming generation of German medium tanks(Panther II, E-50)
KV-1 was superior to Panzer III, the Panzer IV and Stug III was able to penetrate it's thick armor.
IS-1 was basically a beefed up T-34-85.
IS-2 was obviously a step up, but it's 122mm gun had a very long reload speed and the IS-1/IS-2 had weak turret armour(I've seen many War-Time pictures of knocked out IS tanks, and many shots were taken right into the turret).
IS-3 never saw combat in WW2, it was only used in the victory parade in Berlin

 

I love that you mention the F2. All 200 surely had a great impact.

T-44 did not see action at all during WW2.

I disagree with your assessment of T-54. Firstly Panther 2 was abandoned in 1943, and E series main goal was to streamline production costs. Meanwhile T-54 was an extremely successful design. D-10T gun was effective against German tanks even disregarding further development of rounds. But ultimately this is debating opinions not facts.

There's a reason why Germans used their AA 88 guns to fight KV-1 during operation Barbarossa. It was because their dedicated anti tank guns were unable to cope (and KwK 40 did not appear till 1942, and in large numbers in 1943). 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users