4 ms·

Guidance systems were (and are) presumably worse, if one has to judge by officially released data. Propulsion systems were much more difficult to keep in a read

Guidance systems were (and are) presumably worse, if one has to judge by officially released data. Propulsion systems were much more difficult to keep in a ready to launch state, and much more fragile. In general, USSR preferred less sophisticated solutions, instead making sure they could be easily replicated.

paganel 6y ago
Because that had worked for them in WW2, when German tanks (among many other things) were technically superior to their Soviet counter-parts with the results we all know. Fortunately this will never happen but I have always been curious about how US technicals would fare in a ground-war in Russia. My bet is that they would fail most of the times with no possibility of easy fixes, at least compared to their Soviet (now Russian) equivalents. What’s the US equivalent for the Russian Ural or Kamaz trucks?
- jabl 6y ago
  Quantity has a quality of its own. T-34, which was superior to most German tanks like pzkpfw 3/4 when it was introduced, was produced in vast numbers, around 80000. German designed a competitive tank with the Panther, but only about 6000 were made, and they were beset by reliability problems. Add in the production by the Western allies, such as 50000 Sherman tanks, the surprising thing is that Nazi Germany didn't collapse faster. Don't know about modern hardware. Certainly Soviet hardware has a reputation for reliability in adverse conditions. OTOH the first Gulf war was a pretty damning indictment of the warfighting ability of Soviet armour.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    I have seen a description of the allied fighting in Normandy that concluded that it doesn't matter if your tanks are 6 times better if your enemy has 10 times the number of tanks.
    - jabl 6y ago
      In Northern France much of the tank action IIRC was at very short range, due to lots of hedgerows. In such an environment where all tanks are able to reliably hit and penetrate all others, numbers become the dominant factor. In more open country, tank armour and punching power make more of a difference.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > My bet is that they would fail most of the times with no possibility of easy fixes That's a solid bet. The US has not engaged a similarly sophisticated opponent in generations and with high unit costs of American weapons, any such war would be extraordinarily costly.
tryauuum 6y ago
(offtopic) Last sentence made me want to play red alert 2. Though, you cannot call apocalypse tanks unsophisticated...

paganel 6y ago

Because that had worked for them in WW2, when German tanks (among many other things) were technically superior to their Soviet counter-parts with the results we all know. Fortunately this will never happen but I have always been curious about how US technicals would fare in a ground-war in Russia. My bet is that they would fail most of the times with no possibility of easy fixes, at least compared to their Soviet (now Russian) equivalents. What’s the US equivalent for the Russian Ural or Kamaz trucks?

jabl 6y ago
Quantity has a quality of its own. T-34, which was superior to most German tanks like pzkpfw 3/4 when it was introduced, was produced in vast numbers, around 80000. German designed a competitive tank with the Panther, but only about 6000 were made, and they were beset by reliability problems. Add in the production by the Western allies, such as 50000 Sherman tanks, the surprising thing is that Nazi Germany didn't collapse faster. Don't know about modern hardware. Certainly Soviet hardware has a reputation for reliability in adverse conditions. OTOH the first Gulf war was a pretty damning indictment of the warfighting ability of Soviet armour.
- arethuza 6y ago
  I have seen a description of the allied fighting in Normandy that concluded that it doesn't matter if your tanks are 6 times better if your enemy has 10 times the number of tanks.
  - jabl 6y ago
    In Northern France much of the tank action IIRC was at very short range, due to lots of hedgerows. In such an environment where all tanks are able to reliably hit and penetrate all others, numbers become the dominant factor. In more open country, tank armour and punching power make more of a difference.
rbanffy 6y ago
> My bet is that they would fail most of the times with no possibility of easy fixes That's a solid bet. The US has not engaged a similarly sophisticated opponent in generations and with high unit costs of American weapons, any such war would be extraordinarily costly.

tryauuum 6y ago

(offtopic) Last sentence made me want to play red alert 2. Though, you cannot call apocalypse tanks unsophisticated...