Is it true that Cold War era Soviet planes and tanks were much better than their American counterparts?

Is it true that Cold War era Soviet planes and tanks were much better than their American counterparts?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm glad we're discussing war thunder here so someone can leak sweet sweet classified info

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >

      Surprisingly, not necessarily anon. If you're flying something like an F-15E or F-16 the tanks may be attached to you semi-permanently, you'd plan for basically everything done with those tanks on. The tanks on the F-16 only limit you to about 5G, which isn't that much of a limitation anyway.

      Like yeah if you got bounced or had to defend against a SAM or something you'd drop them, of course, but anything else you'd keep them on. I've read about pilots doing BVR with their tanks on even. As long as you don't pull over 5G or so, you're fine.

      The problem with DCS tards is they view "drop tanks" (they're not actually called that anymore) as literal drop tanks. They think you run them dry then drop them for more power. They're fricking moronic.

      Based anon. Finally someone else who also knows the fun part of sims is the pilot larp and not the planes themselves.
      In BMS you also don't want to drop tanks, because they are a limited resource as much as your bombs/missiles.

      Oh yeah, in the case of those really long strike range missions you'll drop them to reduce drag/weight. But in terms of a threat they're not going to drop tanks unless they anticipate they're going to be pulling very high G.

      I don't have an actual source for this right now (can't be bothered) but IIRC the F-16's conformal fuel tanks (which is an option on all/most F-16s run by the USAF, they just don't run them) have way less drag than the wing mounted ones and also don't limit the aircraft's G much. Still though, my point was that DCS nerds don't understand this, which is the real problem.

      >DCS nerds don't understand this
      The real nerds do, but ED doesn't cater to real nerds who actually play the game, they cater to rivet-counters who buy all the useless maps for 40-60 dollars and play about 5 minutes per month, these same people also lash out at anyone who demands ED improve their lacking systems (like EW), because it would be too much guessing (most of the game is, but they delude themselves it isn't).
      Reminder that the Hornet is still missing vast majority of its A2A features (multi-source integration), which I'm certain ED won't bother to fix until Eurofighter with the same capability comes along, which is sadly years away.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hey, another BMS anon. I remember the first time I fricked up and hit a US supply truck by mistake, the friendly fire court martial notification actually shocked me and I had to sit down for a minute or two. Never done it since I'm that autistic about IFF.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My first time seeing that was when I fired into a furball (was quite new to sims at the time), the notification shocked me too.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For me, I was circling, hit a bunch of DPRK trucks, left to refuel (managed to do it, just barely, right before I had to abort), came back, and hit the trucks near where I was last. I was off a bit and hit friendlies.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Debetable. On paper they might have been, which were highly propagandasised back in the day, and they did mass produce everything.
    However their labor force usually was highly inept and their works never matched the blueprint speifications.
    It really depends on what source you look up

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unofficial video game thread?

    Anyone looking forward to BMS 4.34U4? they're bringing Link 16 to the F-16, personally I'm a bit nervous about how that'll go since I've only ever used Link 16 briefly in DCS. I've spent so much time flying off timetables, radar and IDM (which meant I had to avoid AI flights outside my package) that I'm unsure how I'll do suddenly knowing where everything is.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Longbow also uses Link 16. Do any ground assets? Imagine seeing what your teammate sees.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No clue anon, the F-15 has Link 16 but I haven't used it yet. I imagine they'll bring Link 16 to other platforms. I'd expect the warships to have Link 16 also.

        Personally I don't bother with helicopters in BMS outside of shooting them down.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NATO designers hated effective main guns, so at multiple points they would have been facing Soviet tanks like the T-64, that their impotent 105mm guns couldn't frontally penetrate with any realistic effectiveness.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At least NATO guns actually hit shit. The same doesn't necessarily hold true for Soviet ones.
      That a theoretical (if the frontal armour didn't encounter production difficulties) inability to penetrate the front isn't the end of the world was already demonstrated by the PzKpfw III slaughtering T-34s in ridiculous numbers in '41 and '42.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Soviet guns, especially smoothbores, were very accurate. Only at longer ranges HATO tanks could leverage their rangefinders.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >HATO
          come on, man

          the earlier 115mm APFSDS rounds were actually prone to inherently unstable ballistics and couldnt be made perfectly accurate
          it was just considered acceptable because the much higher velocity meant that the errors didnt have time to accumulate before it hit its target

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If NATO tanks are sufficiently agile then Soviet front armor won't matter as much as side and rear

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I am sure to win because my speed is superior

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. If who fires wins wins, that's the case.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They haven't even managed this in Ukraine where they've had a decisive advantage in numbers since the start. This is the air force's wet dream

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >planes
    First generation jets (Sabre/Mig)? sure. Anything else? Lol. Lmao even.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's possible that tanks were on par with western technology back then since they were made under license by satelite state like Czechoslovakia and not by mongoloid Russians.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No you fricking idiot. Satellite copies were not better in any way and were lacking a lot of features. Deliberately so - you wouldn't want potential defectors delivering the latest tech right across the border.
      Czech/German/Polish versions were for example never fitted with ATGMs (Bastion, Svir, Refleks) or APS (Drozd) and had downgraded fire control system.
      The local modernizations during cold war limited to appliqué armour. T-54/55 were refitted with some features from T-72, like laser rangefinders, but that's really the gist of it.
      Only in the 90s were Czech T-72M4 rebuilt with optics from Ariete, engine used on Challenger and Allison transmission derived from the one used on M109.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        See, you fricking ESL pidor, the point isn't that they had more features.
        It's that they were build with actual QC standards and not by a drunk mongol moron with delusions of being white.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you anon, thank you for being able to read with comprehension. I usually don't even bother to reply when somebody is missing the point entirely.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They were better in terms of quality, simply because quantity was laughable compared to Soviets.
        Soviets were smart enough to understand that quality over quantity is a meme 90% of the time.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Our industry standards were high as frick even back then so that might be true. It's still russian design though. We produced some panzerwagens during the WWII and they were all well made.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is your brain on Skodawerke go back and suck Austrian wiener you Bohemian mongoloid

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Implessive, lussia vely stlong, numba two and just behind chaina

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    maybe? But they got surpassed and never were able to catch up easily enough

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Drawing plans and space-era specifications costs nothing; kids can do it. Producing shit according to specifications matters.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Extremely weak bait

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolutely

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For tanks its kind of a boring answer It seems like both were progressing at the same rate and any advantage didnt last long. For Air the soviets didnt come close until the 80s and the collapse led to the west getting ahead. But its hard to gauge a hard number to look at because it all comes down to doctrine which is where war thunder fumbles. For example its well known the soviets invested heavily into air defence like SAMs where the US invested more into its air forces.You can see the lasting impact cause the russians cant SEAD and US has a new SHORAD discussion every time a new conflict occurs.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it all comes down to doctrine which is where war thunder fumbles
      a game mode which reflects this would be cool. ie aircraft spawn is cheaper for the US and AA is cheaper for the Soviets. but who am I kidding they will never improve game modes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        60x60 km+ map, 4+ hour drop in/drop out matches. Give each player control over an armored company. He can go onto a strategic map and move his assets around. He can use aircraft to start with, helicopters, artillery, etc. The first hour or so of the match is a contest to see who can locate and destroy the other side. After that you start seeing dynamic tank battles, several km range, none of this moronic 200 meter city battle shit. Players would use cities as cover or avoid them depending on their tank loadout, in fact some players would deliberately shell/bomb cities just to frick up the rats hiding in them.

        The first side to completely exhaust the other side of vehicles, or maybe bomb several air bases on the other side, or whoever holds x cities at the end of the 4 hours, wins. Give it the reward of basically 10-15+ top 5 scoring Ground RB matches if you win.

        But no, let's continue shooting magical T-72s at 15 meters and complaining about the M1's armor. It's the armor, surely.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not beneficial for the f2p model. Remember War Thunder had a "sim" ground matchmaking queue. Then they axed it and replaced with rotating event system, and everyone stopped giving a frick.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh for sure, War Thunder is an exercise in telling morons without eyes or hands that the problem is their lack of an M1A2, not their inability to see. See the lack of popularity of Sim (where you don't have markers and friendly fire exists) or even how bad people are at dogfighting in Ground RB. Take markers away and they suddenly lose 60 IQ.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Markers, and offset gunsights in tanks. You don't get to target post stamp size weakspots so effortlessly anymore.
              Suddenly turret ring on M1 is not that big of a deal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, add actual tank crews they have to work with similar to GHPC, force cupola view, give gun barrels a collision model, stretch out all maps such that 800m is the average engagement distance, flatten all maps and remove gamey cover people can hide behind, offset gunsights, no markers, add smoke artillery.

                They'll learn how to actually tank real quick.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah. I wonder why they left the ground "sim mode" to rot. They could easily make a proper simulation, but more approachable. Easily controlled with mouse, with multiplayer matchmaking.
                There's a huge fricking market for this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Probably because they figured out whales are legitimately too stupid to actually use the tanks they're offering in a realistic scenario, so the game itself had to be limited. A similar thing happens in DCS believe it or not. morons want their switch clicking epic fighter pilot simulator to scratch the itch that they (bald white IT men in their 30s to 50s) had when they were like 9, but without any of the IRL pesky annoying shit that comes with being an actual fighter pilot.

                They don't even understand why you wouldn't want to drop drop tanks. They're that fricking moronic. The concept of "maybe don't drop several hundred pounds of metal on random shit for no reason bro, those things cost money" doesn't occur to them naturally. But they want to feel like fighter pilots, and they have tons of money, so DCS is built to extract said money from them.

                I hate it too anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i mean - in actual combat you would drop the tanks
                like you would probably plan where to drop them ahead of time, unless you get jumped

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Surprisingly, not necessarily anon. If you're flying something like an F-15E or F-16 the tanks may be attached to you semi-permanently, you'd plan for basically everything done with those tanks on. The tanks on the F-16 only limit you to about 5G, which isn't that much of a limitation anyway.

                Like yeah if you got bounced or had to defend against a SAM or something you'd drop them, of course, but anything else you'd keep them on. I've read about pilots doing BVR with their tanks on even. As long as you don't pull over 5G or so, you're fine.

                The problem with DCS tards is they view "drop tanks" (they're not actually called that anymore) as literal drop tanks. They think you run them dry then drop them for more power. They're fricking moronic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh and another thing, you should see how many DCS players rank aircraft basically just on fuel capacity, and how they fly in game. They sit on military throttle or afterburner 24/7 then complain that the F-16 doesn't have enough fuel.

                It does. You're just supposed to cruise. IF you cruise and plan your mission properly you can eek 600+ nautical mile strike missions out of it, without refueling, with just the two external tanks. These morons sit on full afterburner for more power!!!!!! and then complain that they're getting 100 nautical miles of range out of it.

                It's gotten to the point where it's an actual problem in non-DCS circles too. If you search something like F-16 SEAD some of the first non-US-military-history-website results will be people on hoggit talking about their "SEAD Techniques" that end up being moronic gamified shit that doesn't work IRL discussed by morons who don't know how to access the endurance page on an F-16.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i can see planes patrolling drop tanks to respond to a threat
                but when i wrote that i thought more of long range strike missions, like operation opera, where iirc the israelis planned ahead to drop their tanks in the jordanian or saudi desert before engaging a protected asset

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh yeah, in the case of those really long strike range missions you'll drop them to reduce drag/weight. But in terms of a threat they're not going to drop tanks unless they anticipate they're going to be pulling very high G.

                I don't have an actual source for this right now (can't be bothered) but IIRC the F-16's conformal fuel tanks (which is an option on all/most F-16s run by the USAF, they just don't run them) have way less drag than the wing mounted ones and also don't limit the aircraft's G much. Still though, my point was that DCS nerds don't understand this, which is the real problem.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Man, the game that you are proposing sounds exactly what i want in a tank simulator to bad thos fricks are never gonna implement any of that be it even just for sim.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah. I wonder why they left the ground "sim mode" to rot. They could easily make a proper simulation, but more approachable. Easily controlled with mouse, with multiplayer matchmaking.
              There's a huge fricking market for this.

              Sim got left in the dust because no one played it, and no one played it because of queue times. Unfortunately one of the coolest parts of sim also made it take longer to put matches together, and since realistic was most of the way there the majority of players opted to play that. A real shame, because like you said people learn to exploit the gaminess of realistic, so sim even the playing field considerably

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Confirmed neverplayer. I played ground Sim EXCLUSIVELY until it got removed.
                I remember having to plaster my German captured KV-1 with Balkenkreuzes from every side to avoid temakills.
                There were never any problems with queue.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They removed ground sim? Shit I honestly never noticed. That's really a shame it was fairly fun

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There used to be a proper queue. Like now you queue into a realistic ground match, and it puts you in with other players.
                Now they have a rotating "Event" system. Where you get a lineup of vehicles within a certain bracket you can queue with.
                It sucks ass.

                ARMA and GHPC are better for ground battles, DCS and BMS are better for air.

                No matchmaking multiplayer.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >wanting matchmaking multiplayer
                It's not that those games lack it, it's that you're objectively incorrect for wanting it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I play only multiplayer games these days, and ones that don't take much time.
                It is what it is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good, matchmaking is shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The only time I ever tried playing it would take forever sitting in the queue and I'd never get in. I guess because my lineup didn't work?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In your opinion, does tanks that make many compromises to be easier to produce and need less crew will be better than tanks from countries that expect their tanks to have 10 to 1 disadvantage on the ground and are known for their superior technology?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    planes - only until 60s, they never caught up
    tanks - yes, until mid 80s

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Soviet aircraft very much dominated the skies in the 50s and 60s with the MiG-15s, 17s, 19s, 21s.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soviet aircraft PARTS very much dominated the skies in the 50-60.
      Mostly by being blown up by western airplanes and pilots.

      The only time the soviets got close to matching american built fighters was with the MiD-15. That needed them to steal engines from the west.
      And the best they got with them was a 3:1 ratio in favor of the F-86...

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > And the best they got with them was a 3:1 ratio in favor of the F-86...
        *in favor of the mig-15 in mig alley

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviet aircraft very much dominated the skies in the 50s and 60s with the MiG-15s, 17s, 19s, 21s.
      moronic bait. The first three were roughly evenly matched in terms of paper and actual combat performance and western aircraft wiped the floor with the MiG-21 and subsequent Soviet aircraft.

      No, just stop at 6.7

      This, I stop on every tech tree between 5.7 and 6.7 and move on to a new one

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The French who had neutered aviation industry did better than the Soviets

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A BMP is better than an M113 with a Browning MG mounted on top of it. Though sitting inside an M113 is much more comfortable for sure.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. The US just had so many irons in the fire that some turned out shit, others were amazing and most were middling. People just like to point to the duds, that saw next to no combat, and scream about it because it gives them one of the few chances in their lives to put a positive spin on Soviet shit. "Uh, but this specific model was better than the M103!" Well no shit, because it was immediately relegated to the scraps bin and the couple hundred made was a fricking rounding error compared to the number of good tanks built in the same period. I just fricking bet it's the same people that scream about Shermans being deathtraps, just choosing to ignore all facts and reason because it lets them be smug for a few seconds before they run from any discussion where someone disagrees.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is true that War Thunder is a bad game

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's flawed, but it's the best we've got.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ARMA and GHPC are better for ground battles, DCS and BMS are better for air.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tearing your hair off is more enjoyable than WT ground, air rb is *serviceable* at least

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, just stop at 6.7

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was good. It started being bad back in ~2015.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it depends
    T-55 could be considered about equal to the M48 and centurion, though only having HVAP meant the M48 would struggle at range
    the centurion would absolutely stomp the T-55 when they met in the sinai

    the T-62 and M60A1 were also equally matched on paper, but they basically took different upgrade paths with the T-62M getting composite armor while the M60A3 got digital electronics and eventually a thermal sight, the latter of which firmly put the M60 at an advantage regardless of the imbalance in armor

    the T-64 and T-72 was probably the time when the soviets did have a clear advantage in armor, as NATO was still using the M60A1, the leo 1, and the chieftain at the time
    but the introduction of the M1 abrams and leopard 2 more than evened the odds
    the T-80 never worked out the kinks before the fall of the soviet union, leaving the T-72 and T-64 which had not been universally upgraded to the same standard as the M1 or equivelants
    and the soviets never got working thermal sights before their collapse, leaving NATO armor ahead in the end

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just posting kino.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Which tanks r those?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        M48 and T-54.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lolno

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Can't post k/d because China has never been in a real shooting war and took huge L's in every policing conflict they entered

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is even the point

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a meme you dip.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >no score
        The joke writes itself

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          see here

          It's a meme you dip.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is this version even trying to say?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          see here

          It's a meme you dip.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >best fighter airplane ever
        Needs some screeching about muh PL-15
        >greater than the sum of its parts
        technically true, though that doesn't make it a good plane
        >better than original
        yes
        >Much loved by China and her friends
        This one's a hard sell, since only China and Pakistan use it
        The JF-17 should be on this image because the shilling to potential customers and that it has an actual combat record

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        a more sensible alternative to the aggressive dogma of the west. very impressive anon, thank you

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        do thirdies really?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And the low ratio of the phantom had was because of McNamara and Johnson's fricking moronic rules of engagement, not the aircraft

      >Design aircraft around BVR missiles
      >Not allowed to fire unless target is visually identified and shows hostile intention

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not entirely, too much variety. It was an arms race, constant back and forth.
    The IS3 scares the UK into adopting the 20pdr and the US into producing new tanks (M48). The Centurion, with a stabiliser and APDS, is the best tank in the world for a while. The Centurion and M48 scares the USSR into developing the T-62 and APFSDS. Conversely, the USSR introducing the T-55 scares NATO into adopting the 105, which arrives in time to also counter the T62. The 105 and HESH/HEAT invalidates all soviet tank design, and scares the USSR into developing the T-64's composite armour. HESH/HEAT starts a spiral of utterly moronic development decisions on both sides such as kruschev trying to replace tanks with missile launchers and the US tank development sinking into a batshit obsession with barrel fired missiles and the failure of the MBT-70 programme. The UK and USSR both second guess one another and develop the Chieftain and T64, each with larger guns than everyone else and massive engine issues. The US develops the M60 as a stopgap while its failing to develop the MBT-70 with Germany. Germany has the Leopard 1 with no armour, because armour is obsolete, until it suddenly isnt 2 years later when the T64A appears. The T64A and B have a few years of relative superiority on paper over NATO tanks (except for the chieftain), but theres more factors such as limited T64 numbers, NATO favouring hull-down positions, 105mm APDS being close in effectiveness to 125mm soviet APFSDS and better than 115mm, and the T64's armour not being as effective as on paper. Plus stuff like NATO developing thermal sights and laser rangefinders first. You could argue stabilisers in the 50s and 60s, as the UK has tanks with stabilisers from 1946, ans the USSR from the early 1950s (although they couldnt really fire on the move until the T62), but US and Germany only have them from the early 1970s, France from the 1980s, and Italy has a 50/50 combination of unstabilised M60s and stabilised Leo 1's.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >IS3 scares
      Wth are you talking about? the T-54/55 were far more common and overall better than the IS3

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the allies didnt know the IS-3 was useless and wasted tons of money on counter-measures against the imaginary scenario of hundreds of IS-3s advancing into europe

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        NATO had an absolute fit everytime they saw the soviets had anything new. They had no idea what the IS3 could actually do, but it did look very scary so they imagined that it was much scarier than it actually was. Its larger and more angled looking than a T-54. The soviets stationed all their new stuff in east germany, so NATO would just see new soviet stuff and assume they've got much more of it than they actually did, and what they stationed there were a lot of IS3s. It didnt help that the soviets were also continuing heavy tank production of even more tanks which looked much like the IS-3 e.g. IS-4, T-10. NATO (UK and US) became obsessed with an "engagement gap" , where they thought soviet tanks would land effective hits on them before they could in return, as well as started making random requirements like needing to knock out 5 soviet tanks for every 1 NATO tank, and so they made some quite interesting 120mm+ heavy tanks/tank destroyers such as the M103, Conqueror, FV4005 etc which were intended to knock out the IS3s etc from 2k+. The UK adopts the 20pdr over the 17pdr for its MBTs pretty much immediately after WW2, and is already using APDS, so its actually already very effective against soviet tanks, especially as the T-54s/55s didnt use APDS until the mid 1960s. The UK also starts developing HESH to counter thick heavily angled armour, the US develops HEAT-FS in the mid 50s but otherwise sticks to the 90mm until the UK examines a T-55 after the hungarian uprising, massively overreacts based on the guesstimation of one guy, and immediately develops the 105mm. The 105 arrives in 1957 and gives NATO a massive firepower advantage, its better than the T62's 115mm with its dodgy early apfsds, which appears a few years later in 1961.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and the Russo-Ukrainian war proves this with how many dead M1 Abrams we've seen recently. And they are usually not going against T-90M but older stuff

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like, 3? And the Abrams is as old as most of the t-72's running around Ukraine, I believe the only confirmed destruction by an enemy tank was a t72 with its gun launched atgm

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like, 3? And the Abrams is as old as most of the t-72's running around Ukraine, I believe the only confirmed destruction by an enemy tank was a t72 with its gun launched atgm

      I hate what this fricking war has done to online military discourse. ATGMs were always going to kill tanks, anons. You fight them with tactics (have several tanks together so that you can put multiple rounds on an ATGM site immediately), and moronic levels of smoke and artillery. You use attack helicopters and scout helicopters to kill them from the air, fixed wing aircraft to take out higher level SAM systems, and air power to take out tanks/ATGMs/troops/IFVs you can't see.
      Ukraine is doing it with a few tanks, piecemeal, plus like one or two artillery pieces with restricted ammo use, no helicopters (lobbing rockets doesn't really count), and no aviation.
      In that environment you are going to see a lot of tanks dead to ATGMs. You are not just equaling the playing field, you're putting it in favor of the ATGM, since the ATGM isn't a few meters wide and 40+ tons with a heat signature to match.

      Give Ukraine enough tanks and the associated fire support to go along with them and you will see Russians get fricking minced. You can't cast blame on all of AirLand Battle when you're not allowing 80% of it to be carried out. The parts that we do see working (MLRS/GMLRS although GMLRS is a bit anachronistic, Bradleys, Javelins, etc, all used in a tactical 1 on 1 role without support) absolutely slaughter their Russian equivalents.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If Ukraine want tanks so badly they should fricking make them. They have the worlds largest amount of iron ore. They fricking export coal and tungsten. They even have their own rubber production that's kvetching about not being able to sell to Russia.

        We're two years into this. I am getting fricking sick of their begging. Why do you need to give germany the materials to make tanks for you? Aren't you supposed to be in total war for survival?

        It's like they are admitting abject inferiority and stupidity, and then trying to shame the West for it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My god you are moronic. Do you have any idea what is involved in making a tank? Do you think Ukraine has no AFV production?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no refutation, seeing no way out he immediately resorts to insults
            Sorry I offended you by pointing out that their military is both demanding and pathetic. Thanks for the concession, man.

            Maybe if you write a letter to your congressman the gibs will flow again? Since it's clearly better to wait for aid than attempt to help yourself while Russians murder, rape and pillage.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So no, you don't understand what's involved. I'm not going to educate you, as it would let you make more sophisticated disingenuous arguments. Enjoy the pits of ignorance, degenerate.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If Ukraine want tanks so badly they should fricking make them.
          But you do realize the high tech tank production (T-64/80) in the Soviet Union was done by Ukrainians in Ukraine? Kharkiv was the prime design bureau.
          Oplot is their own, post-collapse, modification. Designed right there.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >it's like they are admitting abject inferiority and stupidity, and then trying to shame the West for it.
          Have you ever encountered an eastern European in person? They're insufferable and do that type of shit constantly. Now it's being done in a global scale

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with the Abrams in Ukraine (and any Western hardware really) is that you have subhuman slavs using them and not American crews.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's it boys, wrap it up.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How are they doing in Ukraine

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We thought the Soviets were more competent than they really were because our spies were reading all of their internal reports but didn't realize that everyone was lying to their superiors and the internal reports were all fake.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soviets were extremely competent. The problem was that their competency couldn't possibly be scaled up to the scale that was needed, and when tried, it all came crashing down.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they aren't even that good in Warthunder though
    >shit depression
    >dies to 90mm HEAT-FS which is America's entire lineup at those tiers
    >mediocre mobility because you're lugging around several tons of armor that does nothing against HEAT

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I play 90% Naval, with the rest evenly split between rank~3 Air and Land RB. The game is fine but never is p2w premium bullshit as obvious as in Naval

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    War Thunder is the greatest game to ever exist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nuh uh

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      More like the greatest grift.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That would be Quake 3 Arena.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We certainly thought they were until someone defected with a foxbat and our engineers realized it was all just a giant pile of unwarranted horse shit.
    Their tanks were decent.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah, that's why the Soviet union won the cold war.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I just fling Mavericks from 10km away in my A-10.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lol no. They were about on par in the 50's but the gap continued to widen in NATO's favor. By the 80's the Soviet stuff was obsolete in comparison.

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