What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy 3.0: We're The Mets of International Diplomacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
The T-72 was developed when the US M60 tank was in use; it was designed in a different era with different design requirements for different purposes. The T-80 and T-90 have attempted to modernize it but not in meaningful ways, and Russia simply can't be bothered to catch up. The fact that they're still using these is an abject failure of military planning. I know at this point, it's T-72 or bust for Russia as they don't have alternatives. But there are lots of questions now about the usefulness of main battle tanks at all. Remember, the original purpose for a tank was to have an armored vehicle to fight the trench warfare of World War I.

They have a newer design - the T-14 Armata - but, like the SU-57, it's barely operational (wikipedia suggests less than 20 built). Like with everything else related to the Russian military, there's at least an even chance that this is never going to come to fruition.
 
Swansong said:
The T-72 was developed when the US M60 tank was in use; it was designed in a different era with different design requirements for different purposes. The T-80 and T-90 have attempted to modernize it but not in meaningful ways, and Russia simply can't be bothered to catch up. The fact that they're still using these is an abject failure of military planning. I know at this point, it's T-72 or bust for Russia as they don't have alternatives. But there are lots of questions now about the usefulness of main battle tanks at all. Remember, the original purpose for a tank was to have an armored vehicle to fight the trench warfare of World War I.

They have a newer design - the T-14 Armata - but, like the SU-57, it's barely operational (wikipedia suggests less than 20 built). Like with everything else related to the Russian military, there's at least an even chance that this is never going to come to fruition.
Click to expand...
TBF, Soviet tanks were never really meant to do much beyond killing a couple of NATO pieces before blowing up. They were meant to be cheap and plentiful.
 
Jimjamesak said:
TBF, Soviet tanks were never really meant to do much beyond killing a couple of NATO pieces before blowing up. They were meant to be cheap and plentiful.
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much any tank?

I heard once, not sure how true it is, the average lifespan for a tank in battle is four minutes.
 
rufus said:
Isn't that pretty much any tank?

I heard once, not sure how true it is, the average lifespan for a tank in battle is four minutes.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say, they just have to have a expected lethality of > 1.01.

If your kid is in a tank crew help him go AWOL if there is a war.
 
I think it was 1980 when I took a course on WWII at the University of North Dakota. A pretty interesting course primarily because there were two professors, one who fought in the Army in Europe, and the second with the Marines in the Pacific. One of the things they liked to do was bring in speakers who had participated in various battles.

Tom Clifford was the President of the University of North Dakota at the time, and had been a tank commander in the Marines in the Pacific. He was pretty seriously wounded at Iwo Jima, and shared with us how it happened.

He said his instructors had always told them to keep the hatch of the turret open, so he did. He was riding in the turret when they came ashore and struck a mine, or something. He told us that at that point he basically became a cork in a champagne bottle. He said it was pretty surreal as he floated above the battle before it occurred to him, "oh, this is going to hurt."

His description of that event will undoubtedly be the last thing I remember from that course.
 
Kepler said:
I was gonna say, they just have to have a expected lethality of > 1.01.

If your kid is in a tank crew help him go AWOL if there is a war.
Click to expand...

Are aircraft carriers now the new tanks? Cause they are going to cause as much ocean rise as ice melt in the next world war
 
Kepler said:
Oops.

drof0of1pyw81.png
Click to expand...

The "Ford Pinto" of tanks.
 
mookie1995 said:
Are aircraft carriers now the new tanks? Cause they are going to cause as much ocean rise as ice melt in the next world war
Click to expand...

A trillion dollars of scrap metal one hour after a real war starts.

But in the meantime they are the killer app for murdering people halfway around the world who only have small arms and taking their stuff.

Truly an imperial weapon. They make no sense in any other context.
 
Kepler said:
One of the rarest things you will ever see: excellent reporting by CNN.
Click to expand...
That video just illustrates something that continues to puzzle me. If Russia had sent thsir entire mass of force across that bridge, they would have overwhelmed that town, and then probably have take Kyiv. But they didn't.

They sent small probing forces against the Ukranians, and when one would get beaten back, they'd send another. Along a long extended front.

They're still doing that today. Their front in the east is still extended, and they keep making probing attacks of small units all along that front. Instead of massing all their forces and launching a major offensive at one spot.
 
rufus said:
That video just illustrates something that continues to puzzle me. If Russia had sent thsir entire mass of force across that bridge, they would have overwhelmed that town, and then probably have take Kyiv. But they didn't.

They sent small probing forces against the Ukranians, and when one would get beaten back, they'd send another. Along a long extended front.

They're still doing that today. Their front in the east is still extended, and they keep making probing attacks of small units all along that front. Instead of massing all their forces and launching a major offensive at one spot.
Click to expand...

Tells me they have next to no effective command and control. They get vague orders and do the least they can to still be compliant. They sent bad equipment, worse leadership, and even worse soldiers.

Either they kept the good stuff and people at home to protect against a surprise attack by Estonia, or it's all like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top