[Oxymoron]

The Chinese made good use of them during the Korean war.

Yes the T34 was a great tank, and was superior to anything the Americans had in that theater.

Typhoon, perhaps your right, but all we have to go on is the Israeli/Arab conflict where both sides used equivalent era tanks. Where the IDF hands down summarily outclassed the Arabs. Also the American supreme victory in Desert storm. When and if the Russian systems ever prove themselves worthy on the battle field then we might have a debate.

All I hear is, "oh the russian tanks were not designed to go one on one........" What were they designed for? Pretty troop transports?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Well in WW2 they were designed to be mass produced and swamp the heavier German tank with vastly superior numbers.
T90 costs between 2.5-4million dollars while the Abrams costs nearly 9million

[Oxymoron]

Well in WW2 they were designed to be mass produced and swamp the heavier German tank with vastly superior numbers.
T90 costs between 2.5-4million dollars while the Abrams costs nearly 9million

HELL no bro. The T-34 was superior to the Mark III the Germans had at that point, it had slopped armor, it was fast and had a powerful gun. So no it was designed to outclass the German Panzer. It was only after the early success of the T-34 that the Germans rushed out the Panther tank to counter.

As far as the cost, neither sum is prohibitive in the numbers needed in today's battle field.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

The T-34's were up against heavier PanzerV's and Tiger's as well as the PanzerIII nd IV's

[Oxymoron]

READ JESS READ !!

the T-34 was designed against the <Mark III. The Panther Tank was specifically pushed out to counter the T-34. The reason they used mass attacks was because of the lack of training of the crews. Granted when the Tiger and Panther tanks came out in large numbers T-34 was at a slight disadvantage, but upgrades over time narrowed the differences. But even till end of the war, the training and capacity of the Germans crews was superior.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

That doesn't change the fact they were designed to be mass produced to swamp the enemy.

[Oxymoron]

OK I cannot talk to .........................


Yes they were designed to be mass produced, but no they were not designed to swamp the enemy. They were designed to out gun, and out armor the enemy, out perform the enemy in every conceivable way. The tactics used by the Russian tank armies had to do with lack of training, not lack of equipment. DO YOU FUCKIN GET IT?????

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Wow relax, quit bouncing off the walls lad, it's okay to be wrong sometimes . . . I presume, hasn't happened to me yet.

[Godstud]

They were designed to out gun, and out armor the enemy, out perform the enemy in every conceivable way.

Oxy, Jesusp is partially correct. The T-34's primary strength was its ease of manufacture. That it also had sloped armour was a factor(a new thing), but it did NOT outgun the German tanks.

Panzer IIIs were an early war tank and easily outclassed by most Soviet designs, Oxy. T-34s were not "designed" to be better than that tank. They just were due to technological advances. Panzer III was an early 1940 German tank. The T-34 came later, and superior to both the III and IV Panzer variants.

This resulted in major problems in Panther units during the Battle of Kursk, as tactical training at the unit level, coordination by radio, and driver training were all seriously deficient. During Zitadelle the Panthers claimed 267 destroyed tanks. The Panther demonstrated its capacity to destroy any Soviet AFV from long distance during the Battle of Kursk, and had a very high overall kill ratio. However, it comprised less than seven percent of the estimated 2,400–2,700 total AFVs deployed by the Germans in this battle, and its effectiveness was limited by its mechanical problems.

The Germans, at that point were the ones suffering for training and such.

[Typhoon]

Typhoon, perhaps your right, but all we have to go on is the Israeli/Arab conflict where both sides used equivalent era tanks.

This is probably the only directly comparable conflict, the Soviet tanks during the 1973 conflict had a technical edge on paper but incurred higher losses due to superior tactics and crew training on the part of the Israeli tankers. The inability of the T-62 and T-55 to depress their cannon to the same degree as their opponents was a distinct flaw, though the results of the conflict speed-ed the adoption of sabot rounds in Western forces.

Also the American supreme victory in Desert storm.

As said huge generational over-match, Iraqi armor was one to two decades out of date. Testing during the 1990's of the modern Soviet standard revealed some nasty surprises. Thankfully for the coalition Iraq has none of these advances.

When and if the Russian systems ever prove themselves worthy on the battle field then we might have a debate.

Should they ever meet on the battle field would be more appropriate, until then we have the tank biathlon...

[layman]

The centurian tank was more powerful that the soviet tanks for a long time but soviet tanks were meant to be smaller and in larger numbers?

Its hardly fair to compare based on Israeli vs arabs due to the superior training and tactics of the Jewish soldiers ?

I would like to see this T90 up against the european tanks. I rekon it is outclassed.

[Typhoon]

The centurian tank was more powerful that the soviet tanks for a long time but soviet tanks were meant to be smaller and in larger numbers?

In 1972 the Egyptian T-62 was rated as having had superior armor, but similar mobility and firepower (only for upgraded tanks with the 105 mm L7 gun) to the Centurion.

Its hardly fair to compare based on Israeli vs arabs due to the superior training and tactics of the Jewish soldiers?

This is a very big factor indeed.

I would like to see this T90 up against the european tanks. I rekon it is outclassed.

It would be interesting to see how they would perform, I imagine that crew training would be the decider as technically they are very similar in terms of performance.

[layman]

It would be interesting to see how they would perform, I imagine that crew training would be the decider as technically they are very similar in terms of performance.

You know more than I do about this stuff but this doesnt seem right to me.

T90 is half the price and 10-20 tons lighter than the big european and American tanks. If it really was just as good then wouldnt the general opinion be that it is the best tank in the world (by far) ?

Most sources dont seem to think this.

[SolarCross]

Most sources dont seem to think this.

It might be that Which Tank? unlike Which Car? doesn't factor in price and weight into their evaluations.

[layman]

Not sure what that is but I am not factoring those in also.

I am talking about 1v1's.

So not arguing the the T90 is not better value for money. I am saying it is hard to beleive it is of 'similar performance' when so much cheaper and lighter and say the leopard 2 or challenger2.

[KlassWar]

Russia tanks are inferior to most western ones are they not?

Depends on the model, with the newer ones usually not at all or not by much. The key difference's gonna be the tank crews, and odds favor the Russians.

America's military is geared toward amphibious power projection in small faraway countries, key focus on Navy, Air Force and Marines. The Russian Federation is a land behemoth, and its backyard are basically states it got a land border with or with a land border to their client states: Russia's miltary focus is on their land army, most especially their armor.

TLDR version: Tanks are the Russians' game ever since the Forties.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

With the evolution of mechanized infantry a small squad of men mounted in a Stryker armed with weapons like the MILAN or Kornet can now out manoeuvre and out gun large expensive battle tanks with ease. In future warfare I can see the MBT taking a more supportive role behind small well equipped squads using guerilla tactics. I would be favouring cheaper smaller faster MBT's in the future over the expensive cumbersome tanks like the Abram's.

[layman]

This is the way the US is going. It will proably not make a new main battle tank.

Russia has about 6000 tanks but only about 200 are T90's I think.

[Travesty]

Thats pretty much the way Russia is going as well. By 2015 it will be switching to these things:



The consensus is that these will be basically an all purpose light, Infantry support tank/IFV designed for low intensity conflicts and counter-insurgency. Inter-State armored warfare WW2 and Cold War Style has become obsolete.

[Zionist Nationalist]

The consensus is that these will be basically an all purpose light, Infantry support tank/IFV designed for low intensity conflicts and counter-insurgency. Inter-State armored warfare WW2 and Cold War Style has become obsolete.

Not really Because another major conflict or even a ww3 can occour within a few years or even 50 years you can never know but in a major conflict we will once again gonna see massive armor battles