Russians lose 200 tanks

[Saddle bum]

Jimbeaux said:

Very very few of those 20,000 are comprised of T-90s.

Absolutely.

The Soviets never threw anything away. They just mothballed it and kept tabs on the crew, (as reservists), so that they could go back and man the kit they used years ago.

Wouldn't be surprised if some 90year olds go back for an annual run around in a T34.

[Lost soul]

tinman0 said:

How quick we forget the Battle of Goose Green.

500 British soldiers who had just marched 40 miles overnight, vs 1,000 well prepared Argies.

Well prepared ? hmm demoralized badly trained conscripts

[Frankeh]

I wonder how far I could get in one of those before being stopped.

[Lost soul]

Frankeh said:

I wonder how far I could get in one of those before being stopped.

Who's going to stop you

[Quaint]

tinman0 said:

The same can be said with the main Allied forces with the Shermans. However, overwhelming numbers did nothing for morale of the poor guys who were driving them. No soldier wants to play an odds game where the chances of his survival are so low.

Indeed - although the numbers game plays on the other side's morale just as badly. I seem to recall reading an account of the interrogation of a Tiger platoon commander, who said, "my Tiger is worth ten Shermans. The problem is, there's always an eleventh".

As for the Eastern Front, the disparity in quality between German and Soviet tanks was far smaller than in the West. Indeed, the T34 (itself derived from an inter-war Christie design IIRC) was so good that the Germans copied it when they made the Panther, which levelled the playing field in terms of vehicle quality despite only being available in limited numbers.

[Frankeh]

The other 19,999 tanks at some point

[Lost soul]

[Nadyenka]

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

article said:

Russia did not need its 20,000 tanks

Thats a hell of a lot of armour , howm any A1M1's have they made 7-8000 then our few hundred on top , no match is it

Not really true. The gun range of the M1 over a T-72 or T-80 is far superior. There are problem with autoloaders jamming in the T tanks that apparently were too costly to retrofit. Remember also, Bradley and other light armored vehicles carry TOW and other tank-killing missles; there is not always a need for another tank or aircraft to kill an enemy tank. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missles from Bradley fighting vehicles than by other tanks IIRC.

I know , but then factor in how many troops (even badly trained troops)the Russkis have and then factor in that they also have shoulder mounted and vehicle mounted anti tank weapons , ok it seems to be accepted that their kit is not as good as the west's but a Uncle Joe said "Quantity has a quality of its own "

At least Russian soldiers do not always shoot at their allys like the Americans.

[wolves_wanderer]

Nadyenka said:

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

article said:

Russia did not need its 20,000 tanks

Thats a hell of a lot of armour , howm any A1M1's have they made 7-8000 then our few hundred on top , no match is it

Not really true. The gun range of the M1 over a T-72 or T-80 is far superior. There are problem with autoloaders jamming in the T tanks that apparently were too costly to retrofit. Remember also, Bradley and other light armored vehicles carry TOW and other tank-killing missles; there is not always a need for another tank or aircraft to kill an enemy tank. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missles from Bradley fighting vehicles than by other tanks IIRC.

I know , but then factor in how many troops (even badly trained troops)the Russkis have and then factor in that they also have shoulder mounted and vehicle mounted anti tank weapons , ok it seems to be accepted that their kit is not as good as the west's but a Uncle Joe said "Quantity has a quality of its own "

At least Russian soldiers do not always shoot at their allys like the Americans.

What allies?

[Fuzzy Wuzzy]

Nadyenka said:

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

article said:

Russia did not need its 20,000 tanks

Thats a hell of a lot of armour , howm any A1M1's have they made 7-8000 then our few hundred on top , no match is it

Not really true. The gun range of the M1 over a T-72 or T-80 is far superior. There are problem with autoloaders jamming in the T tanks that apparently were too costly to retrofit. Remember also, Bradley and other light armored vehicles carry TOW and other tank-killing missles; there is not always a need for another tank or aircraft to kill an enemy tank. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missles from Bradley fighting vehicles than by other tanks IIRC.

I know , but then factor in how many troops (even badly trained troops)the Russkis have and then factor in that they also have shoulder mounted and vehicle mounted anti tank weapons , ok it seems to be accepted that their kit is not as good as the west's but a Uncle Joe said "Quantity has a quality of its own "

At least Russian soldiers do not always shoot at their allys like the Americans.

Yeah, right...

Chechnya: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-72148802.html

Georgia: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8262192

Russian sub Kursk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/r...

Actually, you're right, they shoot their own!

Edited by Fuzzy Wuzzy on Tuesday 2nd March 14:18

[Jimbeaux]

Fuzzy Wuzzy said:

Nadyenka said:

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

article said:

Russia did not need its 20,000 tanks

Thats a hell of a lot of armour , howm any A1M1's have they made 7-8000 then our few hundred on top , no match is it

Not really true. The gun range of the M1 over a T-72 or T-80 is far superior. There are problem with autoloaders jamming in the T tanks that apparently were too costly to retrofit. Remember also, Bradley and other light armored vehicles carry TOW and other tank-killing missles; there is not always a need for another tank or aircraft to kill an enemy tank. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missles from Bradley fighting vehicles than by other tanks IIRC.

I know , but then factor in how many troops (even badly trained troops)the Russkis have and then factor in that they also have shoulder mounted and vehicle mounted anti tank weapons , ok it seems to be accepted that their kit is not as good as the west's but a Uncle Joe said "Quantity has a quality of its own "

At least Russian soldiers do not always shoot at their allys like the Americans.

Yeah, right...

Chechnya: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-72148802.html

Georgia: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8262192

Russian sub Kursk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/r...

Actually, you're right, they shoot their own!

Edited by Fuzzy Wuzzy on Tuesday 2nd March 14:18

Nice!

[Engineer1]

Puddenchucker said:

tinman0 said:

Not really. It's less about numbers and more about accuracy and range. Not forgetting, air superiority as well.

Maybe the Ruskis are just remembering WWII.
The Germans Tiger & Panther tanks were, theoretically, significantly superior to anything the Russians had, but the Russians had about 8-10 tanks (including T34s) to every German tank.

If you have the drivers and the tanks then you may well be able to keep sending them forward until your enemy runs out of bullets.

Also given just how big the Russian landmass is they may be storing regiments worth of tanks near potential flashpoints with the intention of flying the crews in, it is easy to ship men than tanks.

[tinman0]

Lost soul said:

tinman0 said:

How quick we forget the Battle of Goose Green.

500 British soldiers who had just marched 40 miles overnight, vs 1,000 well prepared Argies.

Well prepared ? hmm demoralized badly trained conscripts

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Argies on the Falklands were trained by the British in the first place.

And I doubt that the Argies sent conscripts either. The Falklands was a big mission for them, big honour to take the islands. I cannot imagine that they just picked any old person to send over for this operation.

[Lost soul]

tinman0 said:

Lost soul said:

tinman0 said:

How quick we forget the Battle of Goose Green.

500 British soldiers who had just marched 40 miles overnight, vs 1,000 well prepared Argies.

Well prepared ? hmm demoralized badly trained conscripts

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Argies on the Falklands were trained by the British in the first place.

And I doubt that the Argies sent conscripts either. The Falklands was a big mission for them, big honour to take the islands. I cannot imagine that they just picked any old person to send over for this operation.

It is pretty well documented that a lot of the troops were conscripts and were very badly treated by their own officers

[OllieC]

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

article said:

Russia did not need its 20,000 tanks

Thats a hell of a lot of armour , howm any A1M1's have they made 7-8000 then our few hundred on top , no match is it

Not really true. The gun range of the M1 over a T-72 or T-80 is far superior. There are problem with autoloaders jamming in the T tanks that apparently were too costly to retrofit. Remember also, Bradley and other light armored vehicles carry TOW and other tank-killing missles; there is not always a need for another tank or aircraft to kill an enemy tank. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missles from Bradley fighting vehicles than by other tanks IIRC.

Even though the T72 is pretty old hat now and no match for the western MBT's, the Iraqi 'monkey model' versions were not really comparable to the upgraded Russian models, IIRC.

[Lost soul]

tinman0 said:

Lost soul said:

tinman0 said:

How quick we forget the Battle of Goose Green.

500 British soldiers who had just marched 40 miles overnight, vs 1,000 well prepared Argies.

Well prepared ? hmm demoralized badly trained conscripts

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Argies on the Falklands were trained by the British in the first place.

And I doubt that the Argies sent conscripts either. The Falklands was a big mission for them, big honour to take the islands. I cannot imagine that they just picked any old person to send over for this operation.

Here You go

http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/271.html

[Nadyenka]

Fuzzy Wuzzy said:

Nadyenka said:

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

article said:

Russia did not need its 20,000 tanks

Thats a hell of a lot of armour , howm any A1M1's have they made 7-8000 then our few hundred on top , no match is it

Not really true. The gun range of the M1 over a T-72 or T-80 is far superior. There are problem with autoloaders jamming in the T tanks that apparently were too costly to retrofit. Remember also, Bradley and other light armored vehicles carry TOW and other tank-killing missles; there is not always a need for another tank or aircraft to kill an enemy tank. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missles from Bradley fighting vehicles than by other tanks IIRC.

I know , but then factor in how many troops (even badly trained troops)the Russkis have and then factor in that they also have shoulder mounted and vehicle mounted anti tank weapons , ok it seems to be accepted that their kit is not as good as the west's but a Uncle Joe said "Quantity has a quality of its own "

At least Russian soldiers do not always shoot at their allys like the Americans.

Yeah, right...

Chechnya: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-72148802.html

Georgia: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8262192

Russian sub Kursk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/r...

Actually, you're right, they shoot their own!

Edited by Fuzzy Wuzzy on Tuesday 2nd March 14:18

It is still not almost as bad as the Americans

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/10495676...

This is from 2003 only

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article23...

Also from a British Newspaper

Many people know that the Americans are very bad for this.I do not know why the UK bothers to help them.

[anonymous-user]

Lost soul said:

tinman0 said:

How quick we forget the Battle of Goose Green.

500 British soldiers who had just marched 40 miles overnight, vs 1,000 well prepared Argies.

Well prepared ? hmm demoralized badly trained conscripts

they did have weeks to dig in!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Green

[Nick_F]

Nadyenka said:

It is still not almost as bad as the Americans

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/10495676...

This is from 2003 only

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article23...

Also from a British Newspaper

Many people know that the Americans are very bad for this.I do not know why the UK bothers to help them.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, when Russian forces find themselves in combat everyone on their side has the same kit, the same vehicles, the same operating procedures etc. With a typical western alliance operation this is generally far from the case and much of the materiel and procedures used by each nation's forces will be different.

Since the Americans are generally present in the greatest numbers, it follows that they will be responsible for the greatest number of blue-on-blue incidents.

It doesn't help, of course, that the British Government won't invest in the technology needed to reduce British troops vulnerability to blue-on-blue.

[Frankeh]

I think Americans rely on technology more than common sense and intuition.

I trust we've all seen the video of the american plane bombing their own tanks. One of BBC's reporters was caught up in the blast. It was a pretty crazy news segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLwwi8L7yos


And then there's the one from the cockpit view where they repeatedly ask if anyone is operating in the area and the ground says go for it.
Then 10 seconds later they come back on the video telling them not to engage. Bit late by then.
Oh, and he see's that they're painted orange as targets not to engage, but because no ones meant to be there he engages anywhere. Absolute hick trigger happy american attitude that im quite sure our guys wouldn't share.

Orange fking rockets? Not orange panels that you know indicate friendlies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4