https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...0-99-flaw-dooms-some-russian-tanks/ar-AAWM0Ac So if you are a Russian tanker, your armaments industry doesn’t care about you either.
~ Yes indeed. Russia ingenuity at it's finest. Likely most of the nuclear weapons are of the same caliber — and very old . China is even worse ...
Russkies never care how many of their soldiers die in battle. People are replaceable. So why should they build tanks that protect the life of the crew? Western ethics are alien to the Russkie. A human life is one of the cheapest parts of a tank, from Russkie perspective.
~ This may be true. However it would make sense to build war equipment that can withstand battle better than the opponent's .. '
Russian tanks up to and including the T90 were all designed by the Soviet Union which did not place crew safety as a very high priority. The Armata, the only tank Russia fields whose design did not originate with the SU, by all accounts is one of the (theoretically!) safest tanks there is. Though its very new and hasn't been shot much yet... The crew of the Armata has an additional level of armor inside a 'capsule' inside the structure of the tank, away from the munitions, fuel, engine, etc. Everything is electronically controlled from inside the 'crew capsule.' So, yes, its an autoloader, so it fires quickly, but the gun could jam and render it useless. Not sure if it has the capability to select ammo type either, like manually loaded tanks can. If it can, that would substantially increase the complexity of the loading machinery and increase the chance of it jamming. If not, that would limit its tactical versatility substantially, as its targets would have to be predicted prior to battle, like whether it was intended to be shooting at other armor or not.
To be fair to the T72, its a 50 year old platform, and back then, the Abrams wasn't any better. The Abrams got its upgraded 120mm smoothbore mostly as a means to catch up to the T72. But its certainly a solid point- anyone going into battle against modern weaponry in one of these things today has to wonder why they werent provided a newer tank...
They try that too, but the RuZZian army always relies on superiority of numbers. They send 10 times more tanks into battle than the enemy.
It worked pretty well for us in WW2 with our Shermans. 'Well' being relative of course... It took about 10 Shermans to take out a Tiger, but we had way more than 10 Shermans for every Tiger.
Despite this, American casualties on German battleground were relatively small compared to Soviet losses (~22 million dead soldiers).
Despite this, American casualties on German battleground were relatively small compared to Soviet losses (~22 million dead soldiers).
Thats because they had pretty much won the war by the time we got any boots on the ground. Germany lost at Stalingrad and Kursk. Everything after that was just delay tactics. It could be argued that the lend-lease saved Russia given how close Germany got to Moscow, but the only reason we ever sent forces there was to prevent a Soviet Europe by taking some of it over before they got there.
This discussion is quickly drifting off topic but everyone should know Russia would not have been able to defeat Germany all by itself. The Allies were sending supplies to Russia (especially important since Russia was not very industrialized) and the threat on the Western flank made it more difficult for the Germans to put all their concentration on the East. I think it's even doubtful the Russians would have been able to advance as far into German-held Poland if the Allies had not invaded at that time. Even though the German Army had been defeated and would not be able to invade Russia or continue the occupation. You also ignore the little desert war in North Africa, which also diverted German forces away from Russia. Or the Allies preventing supplies and raw materials (ore, oil, and rubber) from other parts of the world from reaching Germany, which made things a little bit more difficult for them.
That would make a great video game. Germany would have slowed them down, but the numbers tell the story. Russian tank production was about ten times that of the Germans. That's true of some other stuff. Still, there's potential there for a great video game.
That was only a little bit later in the war. (It's more complicated than you are presenting it to be) The Germans still controlled the skies, which would have made it impossible for Russian tanks to advance into German-held territory. One German tank was easily the equivalent of four or five Russian ones. Even late into the war in 1944, when it was obvious Germany was losing, the Russian Soviets did not have the numbers of tanks necessary to outmatch the total number of German tanks. A little bit earlier in the war the Russians had ramped up production, much faster than the Germans, but those tanks were getting destroyed very fast. The total number of German tanks quickly began catching up, until the Russians did not even have double the number of the Germans. At that point, of course, if it had just come down to a battle between only tanks on both sides, the Russians could not have been able to win.
It's "wet storage". It's nothing new. Mid to late model Sherman's wet stored ammunition in the floor during WW2.
Actually the Russians lost about 7-8 million soldiers fighting the Germans in World War Two (still a staggering number). The rest were Russian civilians.
You might be right, but I generally interpret these numbers as Russian ethical failure. They didn't minimize losses, because human lives means nothing to them.
