are russians really that bad ?

> The T-90 was designed and built by Uralvagonzavod, in Nizhny Tagil, Russia. It entered service with the Russian army in 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

IFV bradley comes with its 25mm cannon and saves the day and world.

We know about russian culture, we know about kleptocracy and corruption. But we also know that winners write the history and always belittle the enemy. We know that russians are portrayed as orcs who don't even have in house toilets. Irl how bad they really are ? It's not very specific and too wide of a topic but just give your 2 cents about whatever just so I can have something to read this afternoon.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    p.s. propaganda in general is very interesting topic and it always fun to see when it's deconstructed and demystified. Also conspiracy theories that are actually true is another interesting read but unfortunately that just too deeply buried under a pile of internet garbage.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IS-7 doesnt have side panel armor and its hallow. This stretches further back than the 90's

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    T-90 is just a rebranded T-72BU for marketing reasons since the T-72 got a really bad rep after desert storm. The T-72 itself was just a massively simplified cheaper T-64 for export and mass production.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    T-90 is a shit.
    Literally just a slightly updated T-72 with reactive armor tiles bolted to it, and fitted with an anti-missile jamming system that doesn't really work, and which was already obsolete by the time the russians actually built them.
    And the stupid jamming systems don't even work against the shitty old ATGMS unless the crew somehow instantly realize that they're being painted with a LASER targeting system, and instantly turn the turret in the direction of the incoming missile to dazzle the missile's seeker.

    That's not even mentioning the T-72 was objectively inferior to the T-64 in the first place and only produced due to russian hubris, and the promise that it would be cheaper than the T-64, which it eventually wasn't.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was under the assumption the carousel on the T72 was slightly better than the 64 as it was less likely to take your arm off and has its ammo charges stored in the floor instead of vertically, making it harder to hit. Of course it makes no difference to a top attack munition but back in the day it mattered. Plus Russia wanted modern tank production deeper in Russian territory in case of invasion, they didn't want their only good tank factory to be in Kharkov and then have it be taken or destroyed during a potential invasion. Doesn't quite explain why they didn't just start producing T64s at uralvagonzavod but Russians aren't known for making sensible decisions

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The T-72 autoloader presents a slightly smaller target, yes. But it has other issues instead.
        It's less reliable, slower, and is not compatible with long projectiles, which means that APFSDS rounds compatible with the T-72 autolader are far less effective than the longer darts that the T-64/T-80 auto loader can handle.
        >Doesn't quite explain why they didn't just start producing T64s at uralvagonzavod
        That was 100% due to stubborn pride and hubris. Ural outright refused to produce a tank that they hadn't designed, and made all kinds of bullshit excuses to avoid having to admit that Kharkiv had designed a better thank than them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >didn't just start producing T64s at uralvagonzavod
          Same reason Leningrad later produced the brand new T-80. Dick measurement contest between the three main tank plants. Each would rather produce their own next gen MBT design.

          Ah yes, I forgot how mind bogglingly moronic Russian procurement works. Man could you imagine if American procurement worked the same and we had both the Chrysler and GM M1s in service plus the M60-2000

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >could you imagine if American procurement worked the same and we had both the Chrysler and GM M1s in service plus the M60-2000
            Now imagine that all the other NATO countries also produced their own copies of these tanks, but none of them were made to the same specs, so they had zero parts interchangeability, and differed so much that crews trained on a German-built M1 couldn't effectively operate an American built M1 without needing additional training.
            That's what NATO would be like if NATO used Soviet-style procurement.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >could you imagine if American procurement worked the same and we had both the Chrysler and GM M1s in service plus the M60-2000
            Now imagine that all the other NATO countries also produced their own copies of these tanks, but none of them were made to the same specs, so they had zero parts interchangeability, and differed so much that crews trained on a German-built M1 couldn't effectively operate an American built M1 without needing additional training.
            That's what NATO would be like if NATO used Soviet-style procurement.

            It’s pretty funny when you consider that they were pretty sensible with the T-55 and later T-62 but then they just completely dropped the ball by producing three distinct types of next gen MBT.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >T-54/55: Work together or Stalin will have you shot
              >T-62: Work together or the central committee will have you shot
              >Everything Soviet after T-62: Lol central committee is weak, leadership is weak, embezzle and steal as much as you safely can, everything is fricked, we won't work together give us all huge amounts of money
              >T-90: There is no central committee, the mafia runs the country, nobody will be shot (unless they steal from the Don), frick it steal literally everything you can, frick you we're not even going to pretend we're not doing it
              Sounds about right.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There was no more threat of a war with US. Hence, they invested less into military and more into civilian industry. Its not just corruption, its the fact Russia was not spending 13% of its gdp on military like USSR did

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >T-54
              Morozov advancement over T-44 (Morozov again)
              >T-62
              T-64 has too many teething issues, need cheaper tank while the other cheap tank (T-72) is being developed. Meet T-54/55+1 (+10mm over NATO 105mm sold it off on a general)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >APFSDS rounds compatible with the T-72 autolader are far less effective than the longer darts that the T-64/T-80 auto loader can handle.

          They are still crap mind you, all 125mm has the sabot issue unless the PRC has a manually loaded 125mm i don't know about.

          >in before........
          Yes yes, honorabu mention Norktards.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >didn't just start producing T64s at uralvagonzavod
        Same reason Leningrad later produced the brand new T-80. Dick measurement contest between the three main tank plants. Each would rather produce their own next gen MBT design.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wow. A never version of an older tank is a newer version of an older tank! Thanks for clearing it up, anon.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    simple problem is this

    Russians make and have good stuff but they always blow it out of proportions saying how its even greater than it is.
    This goes both IRL and on the internet.

    1 to 1 Russian gear and Machines ARE inferior but thats only when you ignore the Doctrine behind their reasoning.

    Example:
    You have a City of 100 people and they need to travel to the next city every day using a car.
    Will you buy a Porsche for 10 guys and have the rest walk on foot or will you buy 100 Toyotas and no one has to go on foot ?

    Its all about equiping as many people as possible since Russia is mainly preparing for Total War just like WW2.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Its all about equiping as many people as possible since Russia is mainly preparing for Total War just like WW2.
      Was using Chinese electric golf cars and tractors built when Stalin was alive part of that masterplan?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >are Russians really that bad
    Russia suffers from terminal reactionary syndrome. For every even so slight improvement that happens the Russian elites proceed to attempt to turn the clock back as much as possible. This happens throughout their entire history independent of government type or ideology. This is also usually the time their military suffers the most. For example Nicolas I was a hardcore reactionary and unsurprisingly his army got stomped during the Crimean War. Putin happens to be one of these die hard "must turn back clock 100 years" types and so his army performs exactly as expected.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >We know that russians are portrayed as orcs who don't even have in house toilets

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They tech is alright for a third world shit hole

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >But we also know that winners write the history and always belittle the enemy
    That's a shocking level of projection and/or historical ignorance rusanon.

    In America after WW2 the Nazis were pumped up as superscientists, supersoldiers, elites because making the enemy look strong makes you look good too.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *