Soviet tanks

never. next question.

>>33476336
Never as in the West never overtook them?

>>33476322
Fall of the Soviet Union.

>>33476322
T-72B with an original DShK on it instead of an NSVT? No.

>>33476322
In 1989.

>>33476322
when the west start using thermal and superior ballistic com for their tank

>>33476336
the abrams,leo,and challenger objectivly shit on any slav shit russia spits out

>>33476322

If I had to pick a specific year, it would be 1981, that's when the Leopard 2 received their thermal optics.

However, while NATO had a qualitatively better tank, they were still far behind on quantity. At that time, less than 2000 Abrams and Leopard 2's existed. The M1 could be considered slightly inferior to the Soviet top of the line tanks, the T-80B, T-64B, and T-72A, while the late run Leopard 2/Leopard 2A1 was superior. At the same time, the Soviets had over 10,000 3rd generation MBTs.

1985 brings it closer, with the M1A1 introducing the capable 120mm gun on the more numerous Abrams compared to the Leopard 2.

1989 is when I think NATO had even or better odds with tanks.

By the collapse of the USSR, NATO had pretty definitely better tanks, and large enough numbers of them, although still not quite as many as the Soviets.

>>33476322
I am big fan of slav tanks but you have to admit that T-14 armata is a stupid project.
Also I believe M829A4 can defeat T-80s and T-90s

T-90 is just a T-72++++ Russians had a great tank projects but their stupid corrupted goverment and fall of the commie empire fuck those projects up.

>>33476743
>I am a big fan of slav tanks expect i hate all of them and think they are shit
K.

>>33476322
Around 1979, so yeah essentially the 80's.

Since the Sherman. All American cold war tanks were superior to their soviet counterparts in every way but height

>>33476438
This, the NATO takeover in tank tech lasted all over the 80s. The Soviets began with an edge because of the T-64 and 80B, and weren't wanking either when they brought out the T-72B and T-80U in the middle of the decade, but by the end, the development of NATO day and night optics, the integration of satellite guidance and the massive use of DU by the Americans brought tank superiority to the West. The big names which ended up being definitely superior to Soviet hardware were the M1A1HC and M1A2, Leo 2A5 and Leclerc. The Chally is nice, but has too many controversial features for me to decide since data seems to contradict itself when it comes to stuff like the rifled gun.

The Russians did keep some advantages (tube launched ATGMs, heavy ERA, low silhouettes, autoloaders if we don't count the Leclerc) but not enough to claim superiority over the M1A2 jacked on DU or the Leclerc which beats the Soviet tanks at tjeir own game (mobile, fast, small).

Had the USSR kept existing after 1991, they definitely would have brought out newer stuff in order to regain superiority, but it wouldn't have been until the mid/late 90s.

>>33476759
No mate I believe T-64 and T-80 are engineering marvels but does the Russians have LRP rounds like west?

>>33476322
>When did the West overtake the USSR in tank superiority?
When the Soviets suffered a stroke and decided to field 2 more 3rd gen MBTs in the T-80 of diesel and gas turbined models. Had those failed abortions never been a thing, we would have seen the T-90 or Object 187 20 years earlier.

>>33476743
What's the deal with the Armata?

>>33476939
>Unmanned turret isn't a good idea
>Too big for Russian doctorine
>Unreliable transmisasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJzuo2TsfM

>>33477008
>>Unmanned turret isn't a good idea
acd'd to you
>>Too big for Russian doctorine
acd'd to you
>>Unreliable transmisasion.
acd'd to you

>>33476849

T-72B was not that impressive until it got Kontakt 5 in the lat 80's. While the T-72B had great turret armor, it's electronics are only marginally better than T-72A, which were itself nothing to write home about even in 1980. It added a fairly simple rate keeper that allowed the tank to compute lead, something the "quality" T-64B and T-80B could do since the late 70s.

Also stop getting your information from Wargame. Leclerc is not "small" in any sense, it's basically the same size as M1A2 and it is "lighter and faster" because it's armor composition was geared against CE instead of KE, rather like the early Abrams. The later Leclerc upgrades that gave it better KE protection caused it to gain 3 tons just like the M1A1 HA did. The Leclercs in service right now are only 3-4 tons lighter than an M1A2.

>>33476322
In 1993, when the US introduced M829A2 and Soviet Union was not around anymore while Russia didn't have money to develop and introduce new ERA to counter it in time.

File: object 187.jpg (44KB, 687x509px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 687x509px

>>33476849
>Had the USSR kept existing after 1991, they definitely would have brought out newer stuff in order to regain superiority, but it wouldn't have been until the mid/late 90s.
I didn't ask to feel this feel today, anon.

File: helping hand.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>33476322
what superiority? :^)

>>33477144
Americans seem like nice people.

>>33477008

>Too big for Russian doctrine

What is that even supposed to mean? The IS was active until the 21st century and heaver than the Abrams, which the T-14 functions as a level competitor to. It's a tank killer to destroy other tanks while the T-90 focuses on everything else.

>>33477152
Yes, it's nice when someone borrows you a lighter

File: neato.jpg (21KB, 427x427px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 427x427px

>>33477152
We are. You can argue we're fat,dumb,and love burgers, but you can't argue we're not rather nice people deep down bellow the fat

>>33477187
lol ronson

>>33477202
It makes me think of hobbits. Fat, naive and usually useless in a fight, but all-around nice.

>>33477215
>useless in a fight

anon come on the US has been at war for 93% of its total time existing. We're at least humans in LOTR lore

I remember one interview with Jaruzelski in the late 90's.
He said that in the late 70's they already knew that western tanks won the arms race, and in their plans they calculated they'll need about 8 tanks to destroy one "western" tank. Thus the mass production, small crew, low silhouette, etc.

>>33476322

Superior in what sense? Armor, crew compartmentalization/overall survivability? Firepower? Mobility? Ease of maintenance? Soviet/Russian tanks ahve always been competitive (and often coming out ahead) in terms of armor, firepower and mobility. They have generally lagged behind overall surviviability due to fact that these tanks are generally smaller all around and maintenance (which they generally kick it up to a way higher tier than the tactical units themselves).

I would say in terms of fire control the Soviets/Russians generally lagged behind since the 60 and definitely in the late 70s when Western tanks not only had laser rangefinders but thermal imaging sights as well.

Soviet/Russian tanks aren't bad. They do what it says on the box- it's just a lot of the armies the Soviets/Russians sold to are fucking incompetent; an ineffective army is really to field and train is often a product culture as well as other methodology.

>>33477202
https://youtu.be/wh6ORlaURso
This grandpa is so cute.

File: t-55 (3).jpg (312KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1680x1050px

>>33477262
>in terms of fire control the Soviets/Russians generally lagged behind since the 60
You mean back in the times Americans didn't have gun stabilisation on their M60s? Fucking gun stabilisation, Carl.

>>33477104
My bad, I thought the Leclerc was smaller, it's just a meter shorter but not lower, as I thought. That's not coming from Wargame, I was already convinced of it before playing that game, because I live in France and French people are proud as hell of their stuff, if you listen to French media, you'll be convinced that the FAMAS is the best rifle ever, that the Leclerc shits on both the Armata, Abrams AND the Japanese Type 10 as well, and that the Rafale is the hottest shit to ever grace the skies.

>>33477168
IS isn't heavier then Abrams. I mean the silhouette of the Armata is even bigger than Abrams while weighing less, isn't that an indication of bad armour. I don't think killing Abrams will be easy if you don't have LRP which I have no evidince of Russians having it. While US has 3 types of LRP

>>33477104
I'm curious as to how many people in this thread play Wargame.

>>33477315
>isn't that an indication of bad armour
No, it is not. M60 had beyond poor armour compared to T-64 while being like 8 tonnes heavier.

>>33476849
>DU armor
It's the worst thing.

>>33477338
why?

>>33477315
>LRP which I have no evidince of Russians having it
T-72B3 is a modernisation specifically to introduce an autoloader updated to allow the use of LRP without length restriction.

>>33477338
DU also referred to penetrators, but DU armor is good vs HEAT and traditional AP.

vatniks
vatniks everywhere

>>33477333
Did you just missed the point that T-64 is 1m shorter in height, has a smaller hull than M60. Also M60 has V12 engine while T-64 has 5I which is more then half of the weight. Soviet tanks had similar/more, better armour then western while weighing less because of their smaller profile. T-14 fucks that by being 2 times bigger than T-90 and weighing the same. Armata is a tin can everywhere except the crew compartment.

>>33477365
It's flammable upon friction making soviet tungsken rounds fuck the Abrams even more.
>>33477376
Modern tank combat no one uses HEAT-FS or APDS in Tank vs Tank. Even the third world countries has APFSDS thanks to the T-62

>>33477424
>>>>DU armor
>>>It's the worst thing.
>>why?
>It's flammable upon friction making soviet tungsken rounds fuck the Abrams even more.
That smelly smell, can you smell it? Like something pulled right out of someones arse.

>>33477424
>It's flammable upon friction making soviet tungsken rounds fuck the Abrams even more.
Never heard of this. Citation?

File: 0eb8e3cdd567.jpg (361KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1280x960px

>>33477315
They actually do.

>>33477424
I know the use is widespread with Russia and allies, I can really verify anywhere else, but my point is more that it completes a holistic protection scheme. If you were to take the DU out of Abrams, then it would be easier to defeat the armor with HEAT shells. I suppose you could replace it with a sufficient amount of ceramics, but I don't have the tools to analyze that. Also DU is cheap for the US and Russia, not that we've ever cared about that.

>>33477437
>>33477450
One of the reason the DU used as APFSDS core is that it's also a catches on fire upon friction.

File: doubt.png (84KB, 419x238px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 419x238px

>>33476322
>I only ask because going to school in Germany
Den Dreck kannste deinen Russenfreunden erzählen, Ivan.

>>33477487
The two aren't actually the same, but I'm simply illustrating the scale of what the penetrator for the sabot is like. The collected sabot petal is not the same as the schematic, it being a fair bit longer and having further reinforcing ribs at the lower part as well as third area of contact.

>>33477487
M829A3 still better.
http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/MILITARYSTA/media/M829A3oststecznys_zps5d2e220e.jpg.html
>>33477491
Finally someone gets my point. DU is not that great. but it's economic.

>>33477492
Your arse seems to be the clowncar of lies, one can only imagine what you pull out of there next.

>>33477492
The penetrator itself does not catch fire, an unintented side effect of another desirable property. As the penetrator cuts through harder armor, it sharpens itself, increasing overall penetration. As part of the process of sharpening, highly reactive DU particles are shaven off and turned into aersols, which then "ignite" from the heat of friction. In a DU vs DU situation, there would be non of this sharpening, although DU is not great armor against APFSDS.

>>33477487
>>33477523
To be explicit, a penetrator for such a sabot would be around 900mm long and would have to be fully multisegmented, as the Russians have troubles with creating monobloc penetrators of ridiculous lengths (looking at you M829A3). It would penetrate just about as much RHA as the A3, but overmatch when it comes to complex armors of which multisegment penetrators really shine against see DM 53.

>>33477492
That's nice, now cite the source for your claim on the armour. We're waiting, Bright Eyes.

>>33477215
>useless in a fight

Nah, in a fight Americans tend to be overestimate their own capabilities and have an unwarranted sense of self importance, but when push comes to shove, and they overlook their own bullshit, no one can argue they know their shit and got a lot to show!

>>33477404
No, since the point is that smaller weight is not an indication of bad armour, but rather the opposite, since is is achieved through the use of composites. Had M60 had composite armour, it would've weighted less.
>T-14 fucks that by being 2 times bigger than T-90 and weighing the same
T-14 is not 2 times bigger than T-90 and it doesn't weight the same either. T-14 achieves low weight mainly due to its composition allowing to redistribute the armour.

From 1945-1951 the West had the advantage.
From the 1951-1980ish, the Soviets had the advantage.
From the 80s and on, the West still has the advantage.

>>33477104
I could have sworn the T-72B was protected against existing 105mm ammo

>>33477633
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-faca3ba67f29fb3f68ee435967eefc3b-c

File: t-14 & t-90 collage.jpg (164KB, 2480x563px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 2480x563px

>>33477700
Thanks for illustrating that T-14 is not 2 times bigger than T-90.

>>33476322
slav tanks were only good on paper

which is great for autistic internet arguments

they are vastly inferior when factoring in all the minutia that goes along with how weapon systems integrate as a whole and all the little boring details inside them aside from the size of its gun and amount of armor

>>33477187
Russian accounts by tankers who drove the Emcha are very positive, especially regarding Sherman performance in mud which was exploited to gain advantage over German tanks.

>>33477597
Same material?

>>33477731
why is the armata so xbone heug?

wouldn't one of the main points behind a crewless turret be to make the tank smaller than current tanks?

>>33477788
The point of an unmanned turret is to make the tank safer for the crew.

>>33477788
>wouldn't one of the main points behind a crewless turret be to make the tank smaller than current tanks?
Not really, no. The idea is to remove the need for massive armoring of the turret by evacuating the crew to the frontal hull, which then gets some of those armor mass reinvested. Without the crew in the turret, you only need to armor the gun and its attached gun laying mechanism itself which wouldn't need that much volume and mass of armor. Take away the shell on the T-14 turret and you can see what I'm talking about. This way, you maintain the weight, but increase the protection even further.

>>33477855
Armata doesn't have armour for it's gun

>>33478286
It does. Look again