Jump to content

Who's winning the tank war?


Recommended Posts

With Putin possibly poisoning every opponent abroad there's in my mind, a growing chance of some kind of armoured conflict between him and the US/Europe.

That makes me wonder..

After the second world war there's been some what of a consensus on the fact that more, relatively cheap, Allied tanks (Shermans mostly) did gain superiority over the relatively small number of better quality tanks of the Germans.

If history repeats itself, would that mean that a whole lot of Russian modern tanks (T-90, Armata) beat the probably technically better , but less produced, US/Europe tanks?

 

 

Edited by Seedorf81
small mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, if you're going to post stuff, you should probably have a slight idea as to what it is you are posting.  The United States has over 4,000 Abrams in its active inventory. The Russians have les

Yes, and? The Russians and the US have ample experience with their current-gen MBTs in two semi-recent conventional conflicts and a smattering of low-intensity deployments each. Their main chassis hav

You can picture the scene where several T-90s are racing up the M20 from Dover to London, when an unexpected knocking noise causes them to halt. At which point two dozen Somalis from the Jungle jump o

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

With Putin possibly poisoning every opponent abroad there's in my mind, a growing chance of some kind of armoured conflict between him and the US/Europe.

That makes me wonder..

After the second world war there's been some what of a consensus on the fact that more, relatively cheap, Allied tanks (Shermans mostly) did gain superiority over the relatively small number of better quality tanks of the Germans.

If history repeats itself, would that mean that a whole lot of Russian modern tanks (T-90, Armata) beat the probably technically better , but less produced, US/Europe tanks?

 

 

Russia would be outnumbered, they don't have nearly as much industrial capability, military capability, and manpower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

If history repeats itself, would that mean that a whole lot of Russian modern tanks (T-90, Armata) beat the probably technically better , but less produced, US/Europe tanks?

Ok, if you're going to post stuff, you should probably have a slight idea as to what it is you are posting. 

The United States has over 4,000 Abrams in its active inventory. The Russians have less than 1,000 operational T-90s. 

The meme of red hordes died a long time ago. Continuing to base all future conflicts on this assumption is both ignorant and embarrassingly wrong. 

The West, specifically the United States, has both a quantitative and qualitative advantage over the Russian military. This has been the case for decades now. 

Please, please let this terrible meme end. 

Edited by IICptMillerII
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

The Russians have less than 1,000 operational T-90s. 

And add to this it's T-90s of all modifications and in all kinds of state of readiness. Meaning some of them work only on paper and some better be left in peace rather than risk a fight against say a Leclerc or a later Leo model.

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

see their enemy before being knocked out

...by NATO's absolute domination in airspace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia has a large enough army to *cause mischief*. Making a surprise grab of Estonia in the dead of night and having enough forces to dissuade anyone from thinking about retaking it. That's different, though, from trying to lay claim to everything east of the Oder river. If they can't take Mariupol I doubt they'll be able to take Poznan. Putin's dream of being emperor of all Slavic peoples needs a different strategy. If I were to *theoretically speculate*, it would probably involve subverting the governments of his opponents and installing friendly puppet regimes. Clausewitz famously said war is politics by other means. The opposite is also true - politics is war by other means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Making a surprise grab of Estonia in the dead of night and having enough forces to dissuade anyone from thinking about retaking it.

1. What will happen afterwards? Russia can be annihilated economically even without resorting to military force though...

2. Everyone understands that where's one there will be another so full scale warfare is more probable than not, IMO.

5 minutes ago, MikeyD said: If they can't take Mariupol...

They can from a military point of view. The question is what to do with Mariupol afterwards and why on Earth Russia needs it.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wicky said:

Have the Russians the amphibious capabilities to mount an assault across the English Channel or would they try and come through the Chunnel - Does Putin have the nerve.... ;-)

I had the impression that one of the conditions for building the Chunnel was that it was to be mined for demolition to address that very possibility.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I had the impression that one of the conditions for building the Chunnel was that it was to be mined for demolition to address that very possibility.

Michael

I think the French autoroute toll charges would bankrupt Russia before they could get to the Chunnel - even if they did the French farmers would hopefully form an impenetrable blockade near abouts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wicky said:

I think  the French autoroute toll charges would bankrupt Russia before they could get to the Chunnel - even if they did the French farmers would hopefully form an impenetrable blockade near abouts.

You can picture the scene where several T-90s are racing up the M20 from Dover to London, when an unexpected knocking noise causes them to halt. At which point two dozen Somalis from the Jungle jump out of the ammo bins and disappear into the undergrowth :lol:

p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman was also great because it was a once-size-fits-all solution. Yet, Germans had an entire menagerie of old and new tanks. The RF military, currently, uses 2 or 3 MBTs (depending if you want to call the T-90 a T-72 variant). The Soviet Union had an even greater variety of MBTs in service concurrently. Having the largest borders in the world, and having the worst neighbors puts a serious demand on MBTs and manpower (hence, conscription). As of late, their MBTs have rusted and manpower declined -- but the number of angry neighbors has increased. I would say it would be more fair to compare their strategic requirements and assets to mid-late-war Reich. The T-72/90 always struck me as an effective StuG.

They are stuck between NATO and China. While one could argue which piece of kit is more effective, but with today's readiness and strategic mobility -- they would soon be outnumbered in any theatre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Mariupol, my limited read/understanding was that the Rebel/RUS forces didn't mount a very determined offensive - not through lack of ability or forces, but because better opportunities up north developed more quickly. They were content with a steady pressure, locally opportunistic but operationally limited. 

It was easier and quicker to kettle whole UKR battlegroups in the rolling open terrain around Donetsk rather than grind through an easily reinforce able and defendable coastal city.

Plus, an attack along the coast that gets stalled always brings the possibility of being Dunkirked against the water,, no matter the RUS (limited) sealift capacity. 

Just my non-Mil read :). 

 

Edited by kinophile
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Making a surprise grab of Estonia in the dead of night and having enough forces to dissuade anyone from thinking about retaking it.

May I ask you a question? Do you really think that Russia plans to attack Estonia so or it is kind of doublespeak? I really don't understand. (question to everyone, not only to MikeyD)

Edited by DMS
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that the era of "only" military forces being used is pretty much over?  The next (major) war will incorporate Cyberwar techniques that will hurt the civilian population more than the military (which has at least some training and protection).  This thread, as entertaining as it is, suggests the sort of pre WW2 strategy discussions based on what happened in WW1.

PS:  You can be sure they built in explosives in the Channel Tunnel during construction ready to blow. 

FWIW: When I lived in southern Utah it seemed like an open secret that they were prepared to blow the freeway pass through the Virgin River Gorge to ensure (in the event of crisis) none of the riffraff from Las Vegas and point further south could get into Utah.  :ph34r:   So, am confident that all such outcomes such as the Russians invading Utah or GB have been already thought thru.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DMS said:

May I ask you a question? Do you really think that Russia plans to attack Estonia so or it is kind of doublespeak? I really don't understand. (question to everyone, not only to MikeyD)

Didn't Russia kickoff and rebuke Estonia a few years back when they moved a Soviet statue - After Russian antics in Ukraine on the claimed basis of doing what's necessary for previously Russificated folk - along with cyber attacks and destabilising actions + demands in 2002 that Estonia make Russian an official language - and teaching it in schools.  Plus according to a survey in 2007 60% of Russians considered Estonia as an enemy of Russia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tzvc7

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

The Soviet Union had an even greater variety of MBTs in service concurrently.

Nope, I'd say Russia has much more diverse MBT base. Russia is old Soviet zoo PLUS newly minted ones. And many variants going under the same name actually differ from one another - changes to transmissions, engine, targeting etc. You can imagine what a waste of resources it is. Having incomparably lower military budget Russia has many times more platforms in every class.

2 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

they would soon be outnumbered in any theatre

In early eighties Soviet Union did a strategic assessment of how well it can stand against Chinese Army. And the conclusion was in conflict limited to Far East the Soviet Union would need to resort to nuclear weapons to stop a potential Chinese thrust. Mainly due to logistical issues - limited road network, a sole railway link etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Erwin said:

This thread, as entertaining as it is, suggests the sort of pre WW2 strategy discussions based on what happened in WW1.

That's the idea, bud. Nobody has even mentioned NBC warfare up until IMHO jumped in. That's the scenario, in which the tank thread (tread) is most relevant.

15 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Nope, I'd say Russia has much more diverse MBT base. Russia is old Soviet zoo PLUS newly minted ones. And many variants going under the same name actually differ from one another - changes to transmissions, engine, targeting etc. You can imagine what a waste of resources it is. Having incomparably lower military budget Russia has many times more platforms in every class.

Prior to the fall, the Soviet Army had T-80s, T-72s, T-64s, T-62s and T-55s in active service. Russia has T-90s, T-72s and T-80s in active service? I would argue that the T-62s, and especially T-55s had even more variants, as a result of being deployed in Afghanistan (an area of operations they were not designed for). I completely agree that it's a massive waste of resources. Yet, unlike North America or Great Britain, they do not have secure land borders and cannot rely on any allies. It's a tight situation, and they have to make due.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Didn't Russia kickoff and rebuke Estonia a few years back when they moved a Soviet statue - After Russian antics in Ukraine on the claimed basis of doing what's necessary for previously Russificated folk - along with cyber attacks and destabilising actions + demands in 2002 that Estonia make Russian an official language - and teaching it in schools.  Plus according to a survey in 2007 60% of Russians considered Estonia as an enemy of Russia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tzvc7

So if you hear that Russia invaded Estonia in TV news tomorrow, you are not surprised, you don't suppose sort of fabricated cause of war? ("green men" capture city hall in Narva, "uknown snipers" kill NATO patrool, chemical attack against someone e.t.c.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that a couple of Abrams users (Iraq & Egypt) have placed orders for the T-90.....Does this suggest that the Russians are willing to export more capable versions of their MBTs than the US or is there something else at play?

Consider that my token effort to get this thread vaguely back on track.  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Ok, if you're going to post stuff, you should probably have a slight idea as to what it is you are posting. 

The United States has over 4,000 Abrams in its active inventory. The Russians have less than 1,000 operational T-90s. 

The meme of red hordes died a long time ago. Continuing to base all future conflicts on this assumption is both ignorant and embarrassingly wrong. 

The West, specifically the United States, has both a quantitative and qualitative advantage over the Russian military. This has been the case for decades now. 

Please, please let this terrible meme end. 

https://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp

Now, I know that only T-90's and Armatas were OP's subject, but in general, I wouldn't say that red hordes meme is dead; and, while surely liked by many on this board, I don't think your statement of US having a quantitative advantage over Russia is entirely accurate (even if you realistically half the number of Russian tanks in active service, as some other sources suggest). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, this will be interest for you in this topic. Except Russian forces, look, how much armored vehicles have "mined" DPR (1st Army Corps) and LPR (2nd Army Corps). In comparison with some Westernm armies.

My familiar, former Ukr army serviceman and one of LostArmor experts, has complited huge work - he identificated from photo and video of enemy resourses almost full number of armor in DNR and LNR srvice. With aid of LostArmor resourse, of course.  I've asked him make infographic in English for you and he did it. Click to enlarge. 

 

DNR_LNR_armor.jpg

Edited by Haiduk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...