Russians lose 200 tanks

[Puggit]

Telegraph online

[7 Sevens]

Excellent. Don't the Somali Pirates also have a boat load of them as well?

[ErnestM]

...and in a nearby warehouse...

[theironduke]

Ahhh Lord Of War...

"bullets change government far surer than votes"

[Lost soul]

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

[tinman0]

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

The Iraqis showed how perfectly useless some of this Russian kit was a few years ago. Nothing more than mobile targets being driven around by victims.

[Lost soul]

tinman0 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. It's less about numbers and more about accuracy and range. Not forgetting, air superiority as well.

The Iraqis showed how perfectly useless some of this Russian kit was a few years ago. Nothing more than mobile targets being driven around by victims.

Sure the yanks have all sorts of anti tank stuff , but the ruskis are not exactly lacking in air deffence are they , imagine 20,000 rolling towards you

And the Iraqasaurs had a lot of old stuff

[bobthemonkey]

Especially due to plinking.

Guess whati; tanks and sand cool at vastly different rates. On an IR sensor you might as well place an ACME target on the turret.

[Jimbeaux]

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.

[Puddenchucker]

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.

[Lost soul]

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 "

[pugwash4x4]

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 "

its only accepted in the west- certainly the west couldn't guarantee either air or naval superiority.

Wouldn't bet on land superiority either- not without a pyhrric victory.

Oh and you haev to beat the russian winter- which only the russians seem to cope with- no one else has managed throughout history!

ETA- the T-90 has laser guided shells which are sort of best of both worlds- you get to fire loads of them, but they are exceptionally accurate. The smoothbore gun is stabilised in both azimuth and elevatino and uses Thales sites. The armour is fully reactive- whilst Cobham 2 is probably better, and an abrams more powerful and agile, there won't be THAT much in it. certianly not when you have 20,000 tanks- how many do we have? 500?

Edited by pugwash4x4 on Monday 1st March 19:13

[MiniMan64]

The Russians have always played the numbers game, yes they're stuff isn't as good but they had 10 times as much of it, any wonder they went bust and even more any wonder they've misplaced a few.

Now just imagine if their current influx of oil money had occured in the 70/80's and the that the Party hadn't managed to piss it all away.

[Cooky]

Lost soul said:

And the Iraqasaurs had a lot of old stuff

The longest tank kill in history was recorded during the gulf war. A British Challenger 1 tank recorded a kill on a static T-62 at 5.1km. The Challenger 1 recorded over 300 enemy kills with no losses. This tank kill is still the longest tank to tank kill ever recorded.

Edited by Cooky on Monday 1st March 19:12

[ErnestM]

Massed armour doesn't mean as much today without air superiority. With air superiority a single B-1 or B-2 bomber can drop 30 CBU-97 cluster munitions. Each CBU-97 contains 10 BLU-108 submunitions and each submunition contains 4 projectiles. That's a total of 1200 projectiles incoming (from one aircraft). CBU-97's can also be carried by Strike Eagles and other aircraft.

Google CBU-97 on youtube for a demo.

These things are beyond lethal.

[tinman0]

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.

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.

The other problem is that it doesn't matter how many tanks you have, if the opposition's weapon can take you off at a greater distance, then there are just more targets. It's just a turkey shoot. And you're the turkey.

[tinman0]

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 "

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.

[Jimbeaux]

pugwash4x4 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 "

its only accepted in the west- certainly the west couldn't guarantee either air or naval superiority.

Wouldn't bet on land superiority either- not without a pyhrric victory.

Oh and you haev to beat the russian winter- which only the russians seem to cope with- no one else has managed throughout history!

ETA- the T-90 has laser guided shells which are sort of best of both worlds- you get to fire loads of them, but they are exceptionally accurate. The smoothbore gun is stabilised in both azimuth and elevatino and uses Thales sites. The armour is fully reactive- whilst Cobham 2 is probably better, and an abrams more powerful and agile, there won't be THAT much in it. certianly not when you have 20,000 tanks- how many do we have? 500?

Edited by pugwash4x4 on Monday 1st March 19:13

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

[elster]

tinman0 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 "

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.

Indeed just like the Taliban.

[Nick_F]

7 Armd Bde, Inner German Border, late 1980s. Challenger 1, dug into pre-prepared position awaiting the arrival of the Soviet Western Group of Forces.

With no realistic possibility of ammunition resupply, a full bombload wasn't enough to level the odds, even with a first time kill with every round - and that's before you take into account that they had one artillery piece of 105mm or greater for every 8m of the IGB.

Numbers would have been plenty good enough to do the job.