Soviet tanks not as bad as we think?

Question

If you watch tv you may see documentries about the cold war conflicts. And often Soviet tanks like the t55, t 62 and so on are often crushed by their western counterparts.Especially in the Israel-Arab wars and also in the Gulf war. Soviet tanks are often seen way inferior to western tanks. I doubt this claim.
Tanks exported from the Soviet Union to the world were actually export tanks called Monkey Models by soviet military. Often using inferior ammo, sights, worse armor and many other features which made it inferior to the standart model. Coupled with illtrained crews and bad tactics made the tanks cannon fooder. This may actually benefit the red army since disinformation was the result when an exported monkey model fell into the hands of Western intelligence, who gained a completely false impression of the true combat capabilities. Overestaming your enemy is bad underestaming them is worse.What do you think?

sources:Suvorov, Viktor (1982). Inside the Soviet Army. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02615-500-1.
Milsom, John (1975). Russian Tanks, 1900-1970: The Complete Illustrated History of Soviet Armoured Theory and Design

Answer 1

The quality of the tanks isn't really the issue but rather the quality of the soft pinkish things inside them. Because we in the west tend to get only the Isreali side of the story the combat experiences particularly in 67' and 73' tend to be told in a very pro-Isreali light. Thus they emphasize Arab losses and tactical blunders while glossing over those of the IDF, who did manage some monumental mistakes and suffered huge losses of their own. Superior night vision equipment on Arab (particularly Syrian T-62) tanks in 73' certainly gave the IDF fits. But in the end it was tactical errors and the inherent problems of centrally controlled armies of short-term conscripts that determined the outcome, not the quality of individual tanks.



And of course even less is know of the performance of Iranian western tanks (Chieftain, M47M, M60A1, M48A5) vs. Iraqi T-54/55, T-62 and T-72M.



The Iraqi's in 1991 were well equipped, trained and experienced by regional standards and could have been a formidable opponent to anyone in the region. Being a conscript army in an autocratic regime however they were capable of only set-piece operations at brigade level. The rapid pace at which western forces were able to move and at divisional and corps level while of course enjoying complete air superiority was something completely foreign to the Iraqi's. Again, not a failure of equipment, they were just playing at a whole different level.

Answer 2

Well I'd say the tanks the US faced in Iraq are most deffinately poor tanks compared to those you'd find in the Russian Army, it's not necessarily because they were designed and built differently. The armor and gun would most likely be the exact same, the Russian might have reactive armor equipped but that wouldn't do anything against a depleted uranium sabot. Russian tank designers have always placed a lot less emphasis on crew survivability than Western designers, they make mass produced, effective tanks and count on numbers to be on their side. While Western tanks are all massive armored beasts that are not easily built but provide a great deal of protection to their crews. Another aspect is the fact that the Russians maintain a wide range of tanks, they keep older more outdated tanks in their Army even after widespread deployment of superior tanks. This keeps their numbers up but creates a great disparity of ability between Russian and Western armored forces. While the Russians might have a top of the line tank that could be very effective, there are not a lot of them so their presence on the field would be diluted by older models, giving an overall weaker armored force compared to the forces of Western nations. In all reality if a war between Russia and NATO ever happened the armored war would come down to who has air superiority. Which ever side maintains that superiority will decimate the other sides armor whenever it showed its head long before a large set piece armored engagement occurred.

Answer 3

Who says the Russians did good at struggling with the Germans. Russia had over 10,000,000 casualities in WWII. Yeah this is a great style of zeros. Russia in basic terms had greater ingredients and squaddies than Germany who become additionally at that factor struggling with a 2 front conflict with this is conflict production shattered via on a daily basis air raids from England. Afghanistan does not have the open battlefields the place hundreds of tanks on line battled one yet another. there have been no lines on the battlefield. Tanks are incredibly much ineffective there. (the U. S. did no longer even difficulty making use of any) The Afgans had awareness of the terrain and squaddies keen to die for their reason.

Answer 4

There is a factor that I didn't see in the other answers. As near as we can tell, the export versions of Soviet tanks did NOT include gun-launched anti-tank-guided missiles capability which was retained ONLY in the Soviet-force tanks. This was an important capability, even with limited numbers of missile rounds carried on board and may have made the Soviet tanks more deadly in action that was experienced against the gun-ammo-only export variants. Also, Soviet-force tanks had better additional armor. I once ran a wargame pitting a Russian tank battalion and supporting forces against a Chinese tank BRIGADE, with the Russian tank unit taking advantage of good tactics and the capabilities of the ATGMs, they defeated the larger Chinese unit in our game (experienced tank wargamers on both sides) though it was a very stressful situation for the Russian unit. Whether the game would have modeled reality is of course questionable; what would really be interesting is seeing results of multiple games pitting CORRECTLY modeled ATGM-equipped tanks against NATO units using appropriate tactics for both sides.

Answer 5

You are partially correct but mostly wrong, and your conclusion is very wrong.



The Soviets did export "lesser" models of their equipment (just like the US does today) but the differencesare important to know. The tank itself, engine, gun, etc is the same, radio/comm equipment would differ and extras may differ, such as reactive armor, night vision capability, CBRN protection, etc. The export versions and bona fide Soviet versions are very comparable.



Soviet/Russian tanks take a trashing everywhere they go; Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, regional wars in the CIS countries after the Soviet break-up, etc. Middle Eastern armies are notorious for poorly trained soldiers and unsound tactics, which is a major contributor to the tanks destruction.



For example "modern" Iraqi T-72 tanks were employed as stationary pill boxes in the Iran-Iraq war and this employment was successful enough that the leadership also used this tactic against American M1 tanks in 1991. The T-72 has great speed, a sleek, low profile and a decent main gun so it should have been used in a very mobile "shoot and scoot" role. But M1 tanks are far surperior in every way, armor, gun, comms, CBRN, trained crews.. it was no contest.



Examine the gun on Soviet designed tanks. A rifled bore firing a very conventional round. Against surperior M1 armor this gun is useless. M1 cannons are smoothbore and fire a sabot that cuts through eastern bloc armor like a blow-torch through dry paper.



Examine the armor. A single PG-7V warhead from a run-of-the-mill RPG-7 will penetrate a T-72's armor, which is why reactive armor and stand-off armor came around. Both can be penetrated by the tandem warhead (I forget the designation) fired from the same RPG-7. No single RPG-7 round will penetrate M1 armor, action in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan has proved that. A single intermediate sized anti-tank mine will immobilize a T-72 but an M1 will keep rolling. M1 tanks are routinely used as IED screens because they can take the blast and keep on moving.



Sensitive equipment cannot compare. An M1 can fire on you accurately from beyond the horizon.



A major draw back that has killed many tanks is the fuel storage on the rear of Soviet designed tanks.a hit there (just like on BMP, BTR vehicles) will light it up like the sun. M1 tanks do not have this vulnerable spot.



In short, the T-72 is basically evolved WW2 technology that cannot hold a candle to "western" tanks that are truly modern, such as US M1, British Centurian, Israeli Merkava or German Leopard.

Answer 6

Still would, I will say more, only here on Yahoo, I learned that American tanks not as bad as we (russians) think.

"Soviet military philosophy always tended towards large numbers of cheaper equipment" LOL

Sorry you don't understand Russian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDHygkIDcw4



And stop remembering Chechnya. FYI with the advent of democracy we have begun a terrible mess in the army. One of the consequences was that the tanks that fought in Chechnya, "forgot" to establish a dynamic armor (in the containers were not laid charges), it was the cause of terrible loss.

Answer 7

While your theory may be true that the Soviets did not export their best equipment, when their exported equipment proved to be inferior during combat it would cause a reduction in sales to that and other countries.

The biggest problem with equipment in war is the people operating that equipment.

The Egyptians proved that the best, most modern aircraft from France, was no match for older, less advance aircraft being flown by the Israelis.

Answer 8

I have read all of Suvorov's books...he has some good information and points in all of them..but also has a lot of contradictions...



1. Problem is that after the wall fell we DID get our hands on some first rate Soviet equipment they left in occupied countries...



2. If we thought their stuff was "bad" why did we (and the west) spend billions on producing new world class main battle tanks?



3. In one of Suvorov's books he talks about a 3 year period when the entire Soviet ICBM fleet was not operational due to a lack of high performance fuel filters that they had been getting from the US (through backdoor means) and when that was stopped they couldn't engineer or manufacture the same filters on their own leading to a total shutdown of their entire ICBM force for 3 years.



4. He also talks about how a lack of computers doomed their ABM program forcing them to use deception to make the US think they had a working ABM system.



So it is hard to believe that a country incapable of producing high performance fuel filters or computers could manage to secretly make a tank that was light years ahead of their own export models.

Answer 9

Soviet military philosophy always tended towards large numbers of cheaper equipment. But the strategy, crews and how prepared they are, make the difference.

Answer 10

not at all ! indeed !!!!