With the benefit of hindsight, was any Soviet equipment after the T-55 ever good? Or did they lose parity with the USA as electronics started becoming more important?
With the benefit of hindsight, was any Soviet equipment after the T-55 ever good?
With the benefit of hindsight, was any Soviet equipment after the T-55 ever good? Or did they lose parity with the USA as electronics started becoming more important?
No.
You would need midget crew.
The armor is heavy and obsolete even with ERA.
Clamped, full of 100 mm/105 mm (tiran 4/5) ready to cook off with any impact.
Underpowered. Soviet tanks had their low point with the T-55 and T-62, they only added reliable turbochargers with the T-64 (the engine was bad tho) and T-72.
>You would need midget crew.
That was about 80% of the world population in 1940.
That only applies to thirdies and pre 1950s westerners.
Yeah thirdies+pre-1950s westerners would be the majority of the world's population in the 1940s.
Engine can't be so bad, they kept it from the T-34 up to the T-90. 😉
The engine itself wasn't that bad. The problem was the limited service life with boosted manifold pressure, the initial V-2 engine had a very low service life to begin with and had chronic cooling problems.
Took 20 years to get a reliable turbocharged V-2 but in that time the tank weight increased by +11 tons, an 40% increase. The T-72 had the same mobility as a T-34 but with a little more functional gearbox (with still mediocre reverse).
C'on I added 😉 at the end.
We both know it's an anemic engine with half the displacement of a Leo2 trying to produce the same power (in the T-90).
Akshually the V-2/V-55/V-92 is larger than the german MTU.
I still wonder why didn't soviets just scrap that flawed by design V12 and simply started a simple and cheaper iron block engine with a similar design... party's bureaucracy at work I guess.
the german 838* I'm comparing the T-72s and the early T-90 (just a 72) with the L1 engine.
The L2 engine is a derated 873 but it's a little larger by displacement.
Haha, why would someone just lie on the internet like that?
>MB 838 (Leopard 1)
37.4l 1,920kg, peak 830hp, 2750NM torque
>MB 873 (Leopard 2)
47.64l, 2200kg, peak 1500hp, 4700Nm torque
>V-55 (T-55, 62)
38.88l, 950kg, 580hp, 2254Nm
>V-46 (T-72 Ural/A)
38.88l, 940kg, 780hp, 3090Nm
>V-84 (T-72B)
38.88l, 1090kg, 840hp, 3335Nm of torque
So despite being 1l more displacement then the Leopard 1, it was 1 tonne lighter (btw, I'm not including the gearbox, since with the transmission, the Leopards 1 powerpack weight over 3 tonnes), and was basically equivalent in horsepower and torque, with forced induction (V-46, V-84)
V-55 engine on the T-55 was naturally aspirated with no super/turbocharging, hence the significantly less horsepower.
The MB 873 is in a different league since it is almost 25% larger then both the V-2/46/84 and 838, no replacement for displacement etc etc.
How about not using Lazerpig as a source, all the talk of "V-series bad" seems to originate from him
Because you're comparing the block of the engine alone. The complete engine, and more important, the complete powerpack is even if still lighter by 20% but in overall far inferior. If you "raw" light engines see any wwii engine like the meteor, with +600kW/ton, but that doesn't make them superior, neither torque profile alone.
Being happy with only 1 ton of less weight (being generous) but no reverse and a WWII-tech steering is laughable. I guess that showing your sides is simply superior.
>the 873 of the L2 is derated but whatever
> block of the engine alone
The engine without auxiliaries with the engine alone, germans includes the complete engine module (pack)
if you want "raw"*
then engine and the transmission are too separate things that can be improved independently, for example the the T-72M4CZ with a Renk transmission fitted
Also
>873
>Derated
No idea where you get that from, 1500hp has always been it's standard output
Except those are figures for the engine alone, auxiliaries for the powerpack include the radiator, fans and gearbox which are clearly not fitted
Leopard 1 powerpack when taken out of the tank looks like this with everything attached to the engine
Yes, NATO engines in general are modular powerpacks (engine module + transmission module) easy to remove and better to do maintenance.
>then engine and the transmission are too separate things that can be improved independently
They're separated but both are limited to the tank clearance, soviets chose mediocre transmissions and changing that would require a new tank design. The T-80 exists because the T-64 hull (and its object sucesor) wan't strong enough for the extra power. You simply can't modify parts in a tank, it's a set.
That's the problem with the armata in first place, they tried a new engine for the new hull but as it turned to be unreliable (what a surprise! a X engine being useless!) they need a new hull design.
The 873 installed in a tank is limited to 1200-1500 hp in different versions by constrains, the engine itself is a 1800 hp design.
The same happens with any tank engine and was a major problem of the soviet V-2, the constrains made it unreliable for the KV/IS tanks. Service life always was a priority in the west as less than 1000 hours (common for size-constrained turbodiesels) is too low, most soviet tanks had a engine life of 500-1000 hours. Early T-34 engines had less service life than a turbojet Jumo 004.
>You simply can't modify parts in a tank, it's a set.
Romanians ran into that issue when trying to build their cargo-cult Leopardski 1. They had to lengthen the hull and completely redesign the engine bay, in order to accomodate a western-style powerpack unit.
>Service life always was a priority in the west as less than 1000 hours (common for size-constrained turbodiesels) is too low, most soviet tanks had a engine life of 500-1000 hours.
This is why most western tank engines (except for that shitpile in the Chieftain) were considerablt overbuilt, compared to their Soviet counterparts.
Soviet tank engines were lighter and more compact, but they were mated to absolutely dogshit transmissions, and required a wrenchmonkey to be regularly sent inside the engine bay (not least because no powerpack design) to perform constant maintenance.
Shit, anon, for some reason I had this stored as 18 liters in my head. Sorry.
T-64 had an opposing piston 2 stroke engine, unlike all the other tanks
>unlike all the other tanks
Except the entire family of T-80
right, there's also the T-84/80UD which uses a different diesel engine design.
the design itself is obsolete and slapping on a turbocharger doesn't fix the overall issues. Life expectancy is low (2000 hours), it's fuel ineficient, it runs hot,either guzzles oil like a deepfrier or leaks it like an Exxon Valdez, the coolant lines crack from the vibrantion.It's old style cast iron block that is liable to crack from the heat so most of your maintanance is spend on welding cracks.
Postwar Soviet tanks were generally on par or better than their western counterparts until the 3rd gen.
Hinds objectively blew the early model Cobras out of the water in terms of firepower but were quickly surpassed by the Apache.
>Hinds objectively blew the early model Cobras out of the water
Lol, moronic vatnik homosexual.
The early model Cobra was noticeably worse than the early model Hind, although neither were good, and of course the cobra is two years older. They both had almost totally useless guns (that were replaced in the second model of each aircraft), the hind had options for almost two and a half times as many rockets (128 vs 52), and the hind had 4 ATGMs while the cobra had 0. The Cobra reached parity or even superiority once TOW and the 20mm started to be equip, especially since quad racks were available sooner and more widely for Cobra than Hind. Obviously the modern Viper is significantly superior to any model of Hind including the most advanced South African modifications, to say nothing of the 1980s era junk the vast majority of the fleet remains today.
The vatBlack person has defended his position better than you moron
Tears of denial aren't defense, shitter.
Not an argument.
Neither is your shilling.
>Tears of denial aren't defense, shitter.
Keep trying homosexual.
Hind is not an attack helicopter and has been a massive piece of shit in every conflict it ever fought. It's a completely moronic idea born of the soviet incompetence and stupidity.
The Hind was actually pretty good in the 70s, what other attack chopper do you think was better at killing tanks back then?
The problem is all you know out it is from the '80s in Afghanistan and by then it really needed some upgrades the USSR couldn't produce.
>The Hind was actually pretty good in the 70s
No it wasn't, you're full of shit and know absolutely nothing but vatBlack person drivel.
nta but pls explain the difference between it and western equivalents that make it inferior
It was basically an armored transport helicopter, not agile or maneuverable in the slightest. It can actually chop off its own tail if you ascend too fast, even today. This already disqualifies it from being called an attack helicopter. It's also frickoff huge and a large target, with shit endurance and armor layout. The crew compartment is completely unarmored except for the floor and when the copter is loaded with weapons it cannot carry troops and vice versa because of the weight.
Its weapons were unreliable, poorly suited for human use and generally never saw any use, with the soviets themselves opting for unguided rockets.
alright ill take your word for it
Hind is basically in the same class as European armed utility helicopters, with the difference that those helicopters are actually part of the larger fleet rather than a separate model with its own support chain and procurement. Hind has the armor but is an unwieldy brick, while newer western utility helis are actually decently agile even when carrying a payload.
And hind's armor was never that good to begin with, not just the aforementioned crew compartment but other places as well. It didn't have composite rotor blades and its engines and driveshaft were quite exposed and vulnerable to gunfire and the vaunted armored glass only actually covered the front, with the curved glass offering zero protection. It wasn't very crashworthy and would collapse and kill its crew when it hit the ground.
During that time and especially in the 80s the proliferation of manpads also made armor even less useful.
I like those helicopters, they are cute.
The Hind is nothing like the Lynx don't ever be so fricking stupid again.
Yeah, Lynx is actually a competend and useful helicopter.
Indeed it is.
It's also, got the most successful anti ship helicopter, has straffed a submarine forcing it to ground and has multiple tank kills...it also can do back flips
US tested Mavericks mounted on Cobras at one point but with little need for anti-ship helicopters with all the carriers and little utility otherwise it wasn't adopted in service.
They are plenty maneuverable for their size.
Nothing in the 70’s comes close that can be called a gunship.
You're a moronic slavaboo homosexual.
>for their size
So you admit they're not maneuverable, but have to cope about it like a little slimy b***h.
>be called a gunship
More nonsensical vatBlack person cope.
Commit suicide, you slimy vatnik fanboy shit eater.
helicopters are extremely shit at combat, the literal definition of a glass cannon. an apache costs 10 times as much an abrams, but the US lost twice as many apaches as abrams in iraq despite deploying far fewer apaches and honestly i'd rather have a tank to hide behind than a fricking whirlybird that may or may not be somewhere around in the sky and may or may not fricking blow ME up by mistake if i were infantry on the ground. the only thing a helicopter brings to a fight is speed and visibility (but if you can see them, they can see you, so visibility isn't a straight advantage).
in a real war attack helicopters have exactly one job, which is to be an "oh shit" button so that you can harass and delay if the enemy makes an unexpected breakthrough. and that's a suicide mission, because of how fragile the helicopters are. attack helicopters are doomed by nature, like one of those unfortunate species that need to eat like 5 times their bodyweight every day just to survive so their entire life is just wake up -> panic -> eat -> panic -> eat -> panic -> collapse exhausted. sure, they fill a niche, but man that's a shit life. no rest, no safety, just doomed, and the only reason they persist is because they have like 20 babies every week. that's attack helicopters. they fill a niche that does exist. but it's a raw deal.
this is a lesson that we've really only learned recently. the hind was designed in an era where people thought helicopters were more survivable than they really are, and the idea kinda was that the hind could paradeploy airborne infantry and then act as an IFV for the infantry to make up for the infantry's lack of heavy weapons. what we've learned in real life is that the hind would just instantly die and the infantry would be fricked. so you just have a shitty attack helicopter that's bad at its one job.
Here we can see the hindgay in his bargaining stage, ready to admit that it's shit but trying to shift the blame onto other helicopters and pretend they're all the same.
This type of cope appeared in numbers when shitty russian attack helicopters started dropping like flies in Ukraine and it's been seeping intp other vatnik circlejerks ever since.
did you miss the part where goatfricking ragheads were shooting down 150,000,000 dolllar us space magic helicopters in Iraq with quad PKTs?
I read your fake vatnik story loud and clear. Cope, seethe and dilate, dickless shitskinned asslicker.
>fake vatnik story
homie people actually literally in real life died in apache helicopters over iraq when those helicopters were shot down. do you think all the dead bodies buried in arlington are part of some big old conspiracy?
yeah but that's not an attack helicopter is my point. helicopters are only good for carrying stuff really. they lack the survivability needed to endure in combat.
that's why tanks carry 60 rounds and helicopters carry like 4 missiles.
material losses are inevitable in combat, but attack helicopters are still considered to have the best exchange ratio with their targets
the ability to move fast, hit from a distance, and then hover back into cover gives a highly niche for attack helos
the hind compromises that mission by saddling it with dismounts, but the apache is excellent in its intended role of providing organic CAS to ground units without needing JTAC
>the ability to move fast, hit from a distance, and then hover back into cover gives a highly niche for attack helos
they're not faster than bullets and hovering back into cover is only achievable if you aren't already dead.
helicopters are incredibly fragile. it's not obvious when you look at for example iraq but imagine trying to use an apache against modern SPAAG.
even in the insanely permissive environment of iraq the US lost more apaches than tanks despite apaches costing 10 times more and being deployed in far fewer numbers. they're fragile. it's not a matter of "using them right", helicopters are inherently incredibly fragile.
you say fast, but they're not even fast as far as aerial targets go. if AA can hit a jet it sure as frick can deal with a helicopter. and this is the lesson that everyone has learned since the 90s.
>fast
>fast
>fast
That didn't work for kinzhal.
yeah exactly.
Speed doesn't make a weapon obsolete or relevant. A B-2 isn't faster than a B-52 but its mobility is far less restricted and can be used in situations were the B-52 isn't relevant anymore.
100 tanks are useless if you're miss the timeframe.
>Speed doesn't make a weapon obsolete or relevant
lolwut yes it does. if the role of the weapons system is to be fast and the weapons system is not fast then it fails.
helicopters have operational mobility that can't be rivalled which is why their niche exists. a slow attack helicopter is literally pointless, it offers nothing.
but helicopters are not fast enough for it to matter when they're being shot at. they can't dodge bullets. they're not that fast. so it's not a case of "sure they're fragile but they're so agile and fast that they're still really survivable!". they're just fragile.
> they can't dodge bullets.
Not even a BM can dodge bullets...
Speed =/= unrestricted mobility.
yeah exactly.
>They provide fire support and defend against armor.
durr hurr.
>A treeline or a hill is all they need.
oh great a treeline, that will surely stop the 30mm because they'll just duck below the treetops and the SPAAG will instantly forget about them because out of sight out of mind right?
bruh.
your idea is that your helicopters are going to fly right up to the front line of a hot war and pre-position themselves behind a treeline on a vast open plain and hover there in ambush waiting for an unaware armoured brigade to stumble into them, and then the helicopters are gonna pop up, pop off, duck down again, and what? portal out of there? never pop up again? or are they gonna pop up right into the waiting gunsights of the SPAAG operators who if they weren't already doing their literal job of anticipating where enemy helicopters might be hiding sure as frick know where they are now?
i get that it's possible. what you don't get is that it's also incredibly fricking dangerous. it's dangerous when you do it in a fricking tank. helicopters are not tanks. they are fragile, and you will lose a lot of them.
>There are no "peer advbersaries"
sure, but you should be preparing to fight them anyway because that's how you stay number one.
>They outrange SPAAG
lolno
>and no system can react fast enough to a well executed helicopter ambush
lolno. how are you gonna pre-target the SPAAG systems when you're hiding behind the treeline? helicopters need to acquire and fire just like the SPAAG do and the helicopters are the ones hovering in the fricking sky lighting up every radar on the continent with their massive catherine wheel hats.
this is what i mean by being stuck in "permissive environment" thinking, as if the low-level air defence soldiers driving their anti-air equipment are gonna be asleep on the job as they blunder in a straight line towards kyiv like someone set a rally point.
>durr hurr.
Literal moron ramblings.
>oh great a treeline, that will surely stop the 30mm because they'll just duck below the treetops and the SPAAG will instantly forget about them
The treeline isn't 1 tree deep you delusional moron.
>your idea is that your helicopters are going to fly right up to the front line
Lol, now it's "right to the front line" instead of the breakthrough. The goalposts are moving.
>on a vast open plain
You're obsessed with some kind of metaphysical "open plain" that apparently all battles are fought on.
>pre-position themselves behind a treeline on a vast open plain and hover there in ambush waiting for an unaware armoured brigade to stumble into them
You don't wait for them to "stumble" into you, you deliberately use intel from your higher forces to position yourself in your path. Another foreign concept to vatniks.
>lolno
Lolyes. You're a deluded know nothing moron.
> how are you gonna pre-target the SPAAG systems when you're hiding behind the treeline?
By having communications between forces, light observation helicopters and various other sensors.
>helicopters need to acquire and fire just like the SPAAG
No they don't.
>Literal moron ramblings.
yeah exactly.
>The treeline isn't 1 tree deep you delusional moron.
30mm can go through more than one tree 🙂
>Lol, now it's "right to the front line" instead of the breakthrough.
bruh where do you think breakthroughs happen? in the rear echelon?
>You're obsessed with some kind of metaphysical "open plain" that apparently all battles are fought on.
yeah lmao who would care about dumb shit like the massive open plains of eastern europe during the cold war. when designing a tank-hunter don't you think it's relevant to consider that the whole point of tanks is fighting in open country?
>You don't wait for them to "stumble" into you, you deliberately use intel from your higher forces to position yourself in your path.
but you're the one making the breakthrough so you have to position yourself behind enemy lines to interdict their reinforcements before your breakthrough even starts? how do you plan to pull of your helicopter ambush when you're the one on the offensive? or is it perhaps the case that like i have said this whole time, helicopters are an "oh shit" button for when the enemy is breaking through and you use them defensively instead of your moronic fantasy.
>Lolyes
i mean you're the one talking about how open plains don't exist so it's not like they'll be engaging at their maximum range anyway, right? that's what you said, right? but putting aside that lmao, consider: hellfire max range ~11km, IRIS-T SLM range 40km. if you need longer ranges to engage helicopters you can have them. you just don't need them, really, because you're right - helicopters don't engage at their maximum range because they don't get to choose where the treeline is in relation to the enemy.
>By having communications between forces
yeah and the helicopters still have to do their own target acquisition once they actually get above the treeline. and you assume the enemy does none of these things.
>30mm can go through more than one tree 🙂
It's HE you moronic b***h.
>bruh where do you think breakthroughs happen?
Beyond the frontline.
>yeah lmao who would care about dumb shit like the massive open plains of eastern europe during the cold war.
AHAHAHAHA, the moron really went there. As if the cold war was about invading the soviets and rushing those plains for NATO.
>do you plan to pull of your helicopter ambush when you're the one on the offensive?
Attack helicopters are largely defensive weapons, that's what i said when i said they're used for fire support and anti armor. Was this too difficult for your alcoholic brain to understand?
>i mean you're the one talking about how open plains don't exist
cope
>so it's not like they'll be engaging at their maximum range anyway
Helicopters will, because they can fly. That's their point. God, you're moronic.
>consider: hellfire max range ~11km, IRIS-T SLM range 40km
Notice how the shilly b***h switched from SPAAG to IRIS-T.
>yeah and the helicopters still have to do their own target acquisition once they actually get above the treeline.
You know nothing about modern helicopters. Also, even old ones only need to aim, they don't need target acquisition like AA does.
have a nice day, armatard. Russia is a worthless shithole and should be gassed and drowned in feces.
You two reminded me of the two hot b***hes in pic related, I really love the amount of autism show in your little conversation, this is one of the reasons I love this kind of social media, and unlike reddit it's far easier to follow your aspergasm.
Why yes indeed the Hind was a flawed experiment, attempting to combine a gunship and a transport copter got a kinda mediocre platform, still, if you are just fighting underfunded thirdie guerrillas with no MANPADs then it will do quite well, which is, believe it or not, why they are still used today.
>vs shitskin insurgence with not backup from a major power: 4.5/5
>vs a formal thirdie army: 3/5
>vs country with late Cold War era to modern AA: 1.5/5
>an armed and armored heli would do fine against tribesmen armed with only AKs
Wow. Completely unexpected. Never could've seen that coming.
>It's HE you moronic b***h.
yeah and it kinda blows up the trees in then way amirite. it'd have a hard time getting through metal otherwise.
>Beyond the frontline.
so they just teleport behind the frontline then?
>As if the cold war was about invading the soviets and rushing those plains for NATO.
lmao no it wasn't are you fricking stupid? the cold war was NATO trying to defend from soviet hordes, that's why NATO built proper attack helicopters while the russians built shitty flying BMPs.
>Helicopters will, because they can fly.
but they're hiding behind the treeline...
>Notice how the shilly b***h switched from SPAAG to IRIS-T.
SPAAG usually has missiles strapped to it too. all the modern ones do. not like you can't just strap a missile to anything really if you need one.
>they don't need target acquisition like AA does.
yeah lol they're magic where you just use the force to magically guide all of your tiny stock of missiles towards the enemy's shorad without even knowing where the shorad is let alone distinguishing it from every other target lol.
who do you even think you're arguing with? you agree with basically everything i say. you said the hind is shit, i agree. you said helicopters are defensive weapons, i agree. the only thing that's even in contention is this dumbass idea you have that helicopters are gonna be hiding behind trees engaging at 11kms and suffering no losses. sure, that's the ideal, but the enemy knows what your plan is and does things to stop it from working. that's why tanks have armour.
i just don't understand what your point is. why are you here? what are you trying to say?
helicopters are incredibly fragile and the only thing they bring to the table is speed. that's why they're used as ambush weapons as you described, but even in that role they're vulnerable because they're essentially unarmoured. the hind is shit because it deviated from this. this is all i've said the entire thread and you agree with all of it.
Didn't you get enough of a beatin, moronic vatBlack person?
>yeah and it kinda blows up the trees in then way amirite
Ok moron.
>so they just teleport behind the frontline then?
What do you think breaking through in "breakthough" means?
>the cold war was NATO trying to defend from soviet hordes, that's why NATO built proper attack helicopters while the russians built shitty flying BMPs.
Is that a concession? Will your have a nice day on cam now, you absolute fricking moron?
>SPAAG usually has missiles strapped to it too.
Lol, more idiotic and dishonest cope.
>yeah lol they're magic where you just use the force to magically guide all of your tiny stock of missiles towards the enemy's shorad without even knowing where the shorad is
I've explained you all about intel and target detection but you're too dumb to get it.
>you said the hind is shit, i agree.
You either chimed in or outright claimed that "hind is da bettar than Cobra" and some other moronic drivel that some homosexual produced. Nobody asked you, you've just made a fool of yourself standing up for homosexuals.
>the only thing that's even in contention is this dumbass idea you have that helicopters are gonna be hiding behind trees engaging at 11kms and suffering no losses
A shitty strawman from an illiterate Black person that thought attack helicopters only carry 4 missiles and are outranged by SPAAG.
>helicopters are incredibly fragile and the only thing they bring to the table is speed.
You don't understand how aircraft works, at all.
>i mean semantically it's more of an attack helicopter than an apache because the hind was designed with an offensive role in mind.
What moronic drivel.
>i don't really care what you call the hind
I don't care that you're a filthy lying shill either.
>i didn't pretend they're all trash. they're just incredibly vulnerable and fragile weapons systems which is why they have a tiny niche as highly mobile ambush weapons to be used defensively
Like that, a filthy moronic liar.
>What do you think breaking through in "breakthough" means?
i think it means breaking through the front line. so how do the helicopters get to the breakthrough without going through the front line?
>Is that a concession?
that would require me to have been defending the ground you're asking me to concede lol.
>Lol, more idiotic and dishonest cope.
lolwut. missiles are so ubiquitous that they don't even really make SPAAG anymore, just truck-launched SHORAD. idk why you think IRIS isn't used as SHORAD, they're literally being sent to ukraine for that purpose.
>I've explained you all about intel and target detection but you're too dumb to get it.
intel and target detection is not the same as typing "revealall" into the console anon.
>You either chimed in or outright claimed that "hind is da bettar than Cobra"
i have literally never said that or anything close to that and have only ever called the hind shit for all the reasons i've already stated.
>A shitty strawman
it's the only conclusion anyone can draw from your cope. when i point out how visible helicopters are you say they'll hide behind the trees. when i point out how SPAAG will be watching the hiding spots and ready to fire you say the helicopters will be out of range. you have infinite excuses, but it's only when you put together the excuses that it's possible to realise how moronic your idea of a real life engagement would be. helicopters hiding behind trees 11km away pre-targeting every AA system the enemy has while the operators of those systems are drunk and asleep, and instantly deleting them before fricking off through a portal or something on the plains of europe. yeah, i agree, that would be a really effective way to use a helicopter but it'd be easier just to wave your magic wand again.
>What moronic drivel.
you brought it up lmao
>the helicopters get to the breakthrough
Literally 0 braincells in you.
>hat would require me to have been defending the ground you're asking me to concede
You have, that's where it all started.
>missiles are so ubiquitous that they don't even really make SPAAG anymore
Therefore your claims about SPAAG are just moronic drivel. Nice concession.
>ntel and target detection is not the same as typing "revealall" into the console
This is pathetic cope. Wipe your tears before typing.
>i have literally never said that or anything close to that
> when i point out how visible helicopters are you say they'll hide behind the trees
They are and they will.
>when i point out how SPAAG will be watching the hiding spots and ready to fire
It won't to begin with.
>the helicopters will be out of range
And they will be.
>helicopters hiding behind trees 11km away pre-targeting every AA system the enemy has while the operators of those systems are drunk and asleep
Your AA can't detect hidden helicopters before they started to engage you, that's literally how it works.
>instantly deleting them
Now you're just crying and making shit up to feel better about being a broken b***h.
> or something on the plains of europe
More moronic fantasies from an obsessed homosexual.
>You have, that's where it all started.
what, when i said that tanks are most effective in open country so that's where it's going to be most important for your helicopters to be able to fight tanks? then you said something about how europe doesn't have any open country so i called you a moron.
>Therefore your claims about SPAAG are just moronic drivel
what claims lol. whether the helicopter gets hit by SPAAG or SHORAD idk if it'll make much difference to the guys inside. do you actually have autism? why are you so obsessed with these irrelevant extraneous details lol.
>It won't to begin with.
yeah, your "the operators will drunk and asleep" excuse.
you realise that the enemy knows you exist and is looking for you, right? when he looks at a map he is going to say "here are the places where helicopters might be hiding" and he is going to watch those places closely in case there are helicopters hiding there, right?
i mean that's literally their job. that's why the machines have people in them. to operate them.
>Your AA can't detect hidden helicopters before they started to engage you
um ackshually it's called intel and target detection so that means i already know where all your helicopters are. see how moronic it is? it's war moron, everyone is hiding. the helicopters pop up and blow up some of the enemy, the enemy shoots back, etcetera etcetera. it's not a difficult concept.
>what claims lol
>They outrange SPAAG
lolno
>irrelevant extraneous details
That's how illterate Black folk cope.
>"the operators will drunk and asleep" excuse.
Apparently that's an excuse but "operators that can see through walls for many miles around them with no blind spots" aren't, lol.
>you realise that the enemy knows you exist and is looking for you, right?
And they won't find them without combined arms, particularly forward deployed recon and infantry. Although it's not like you know what combined arms means.
>when he looks at a map he is going to say "here are the places where helicopters might be hiding"
We're adding magic maps to the cope list now.
>i mean that's literally their job. that's why the machines have people in them
Actually most of their job is defending against planes rather than seeking out terrain hugging helicopters that are impossible for them to see.
>um ackshually it's called intel and target detection
You're too moronic to understand how intelligence and target detection works so it really must sound like magic to you.
>the helicopters pop up and blow up some of the enemy
And helicopters are gone and redeploy, moving onto the next target.
>They outrange SPAAG
SPAAG is still SPAAG when you strap a missile to it, which is what they do to all modern SPAAG.
>"operators that can see through walls for many miles around them with no blind spots"
i believe it's called a radar actually.
>And they won't find them without combined arms, particularly forward deployed recon and infantry
yes, and?
if they do X they will find the apaches, if they do not do X they won't. and your grand battleplan is to rely on your enemies being too stupid to do X?
once again, what the frick is your point?
>We're adding magic maps
or, y'know, just regular maps. or like a dude with binoculars and a sketchbook. i think it's called "intel and target detection".
have you never watched a movie where the characters are walking through the forest and someone says "this would be a great place for an ambush..." and then an ambush happens. it's kinda like that except you don't just walk into the ambush. i mean frick did you forget how the US used to spring NVA ambushes in vietnam and then flip the script on them with a counter-ambush?
"this would be a perfect spot for helicopters to ambush us, so split up into two teams. team 1 go forward, team 2 sit back and stare really hard at your radars and shoot anything that moves". wah wah, dead helicopters.
it's not rocket science.
>Actually most of their job is defending against planes
oh right i forgot it's called plane defence not air defence lol.
>You're too moronic to understand how intelligence and target detection works
nah bro it's easy you just ask the enemy really nicely to tell you where he's hidden his air defence. works every time.
>SPAAG is still SPAAG when you strap a missile to it
This is cope.
>i believe it's called a radar actually.
Dang, that wall hacking radars.
>if they do X they will find the apaches, if they do not do X they won't.
And if you do X they won't and if you let them they will. That's literally what combined arms is, yet such concept always evades the Black person IQ mind of a vatBlack person.
>have you never watched a movie where the characters are walking through the forest and someone says "this would be a great place for an ambush..."
apparent;y you forgot that unlike tanks and other ground vehicles helicopters can actually fly rather than sit in your predetermined spots.
>oh right i forgot it's called plane defence not air defence lol.
Lol, now you're sticking to semantics, lol. As if your inconsistent lying ass wasn't already disgustinly obvious.
I'll spell it out to you: very few shorad systems are suited to dealing with helicopter ambushes because their kill chain cannot keep up with them.
>nah bro it's easy you just ask the enemy
You're in tears because helicopter recon is too difficult of a concept to you.
bro you're not even replying to my posts anymore.
if you wanna have schizo conversations with people who don't exist can you do it on your own time pls.
in 2003 the US Army massively underestimated the threat posed to helicopters by fricking machineguns, let alone actual anti air systems, and lost two of them in a single engagement. as a result the US changed its entire doctrine for use of helicopters in iraq based on this new understanding of vulnerable they are and still managed to lose like 30 by the end of the war.
and here you are posting endless screeds about how helicopters are invulnerable and you just have to use them right, where you have a massive covering force magically identifying every possible threat to your helicopters (remember: this includes fricking machineguns) so that your helicopters can warp into their perfect ambush position unseen, pop up and instantly obliterate every target, and then warp back out.
and for this plan to work, all you need to rely on is that your enemy do literally nothing to counter any of these incredibly obvious steps and also be asleep during the ambush. and we know from experience that even the fricking iraqis, as 90% of their army is in a fricking rout or already surrendered, managed to fight off helicopters. imagine if they were a peer adversary.
helicopters are fragile and vulnerable. the hind was designed at a time when people didn't understand how fragile helicopters were and was conceived of as a flying BMP. it failed at this role because it was too fragile, and so it just ended up being a shitty attack helicopter. the apache, which was conceived of as an ambush weapon against soviet tank breakthroughs, performs better because that's what helicopters are actually useful for. but when pushed outside of this tiny niche, like in iraq, they get shot down by fricking peasant goatfrickers with machineguns because. they're. fragile.
this concludes the discussion. goodbye.
You haven't been replying to my posts ever since you chimed in with your moronic drivel during the topic of how shit the hind is.
>reee machineguns machineguns machineguns machineguns
Just because you repeat the lie a dozen times won't make it true. You're still nothing but a filthy liar with no military knowledge.
>and here you are posting endless screeds about how helicopters are invulnerable and you just have to use them right
Anything is invulnerable if you use it right. You like truisms, don't you?
>this tiny niche
It's useful in literally any kind of warfare, the only problem with it in semi-COIN was the price tag that made a dozen of damaged airframes anything remotely significant. Although you don't understand the purpose of aircraft any more than the purpose of combined arms so it's no wonder you spew moronation.
>this concludes the discussion
Run away you little shit and hope that you never get caught spewing your idiotic illiterate drivel again, worthless scum.
the hind is not fragile. you need guided missiles to reliably take them down from the ground.
A .50 cal to the rotor or the driveshaft would immadiately bring it down. The engines are completely exposed. Hitting and cutting hydraulic lines will make it stop since it has next to 0 redundancy and might start a fire as well. A kill on the pilot will crash it since the WSO doesn't have a second set of controls and isn't trained to fly it. It's not tough at all.
>still pushing this moronation
Give it a rest Ivan, your own records indicate otherwise https://web.archive.org/web/20180419150009/http://www.skywar.ru/afghan5.html
>they're not faster than bullets and hovering back into cover is only achievable if you aren't already dead.
You are a deluded moron that doesn't understand a single thing about military. No wonder shit eaters like you shill for russian garbage like the hind.
how exactly do you imagine your mythical helicopter attack to work? your helicopters hover behind a convenient mountain (because those are always available right, especially in the wide open plains that tanks are used in) and just pop over the top to fire off some missiles with nobody caring?
you think the brigade AA, knowing that enemy helicopters are operating, won't be looking at and pointing their guns at the convenient "this is where the helicopters hide" terrain features?
a real war against a peer adversary is not like iraq.
>pea brain moronic Black person that thinks attack helicopters are like tanks.
my entire point is in fact the opposite. helicopters are not like tanks. that's why i contrasted tanks with helicopters. to demonstrate how they are not alike.
you pea brain.
>their speed allows them to react quickly to targets presenting themselves
doesn't allow them to matrix dodge SPAAG tho
>a tank company in reserve would need several hours to cover the same distance a helo could in a single one
yeah that's why helicopters are useful as an "oh shit" button
>despite this, they occupy a valuable tactical role that no other vehicle the army can fill
yeah that's what i said
>they are faster than any land vehicle and unlike jets can operate from spartan airstrips close to the frontlines
yeah i know
>this makes them an excellent middile ground compared to calling in an airstrike
not if they all die, though, and that's the problem. people die in war so if you need to use helicopters then fine, do it, but they're so fragile and limited that the only time it's really justified to throw them away like that is as an "oh shit" button. helicopters have always been your hyper-mobile reserve force. the hind tried to stray away from that and that's why it was shit.
a mobile reserve is not just used in cases of emergencies, they are actually very rarely used that way, reserves can also be deployed laterally along the battle line to tackle hot spots as they appear
they are used to provide top cover for the army when jets arent available
or even when they are, because jets cannot hover while helos can, allowing them to stay in the fight and unload on multiple targets of opportunity
>a mobile reserve is not just used in cases of emergencies
fair enough but at the same time there's a reason why the helicopters aren't part of the breakthrough element. (it's because they wouldn't survive).
you're only going to be able to commit your helicopters if you've either already degraded the enemy's AA or if you're willing to lose them. this is trite because the same goes for any weapons system but the difference here is simply that this is why the hind failed. it has this dumbass infantry carrying capability because the soviets thought they could use it as an IFV at a time where people hadn't realised exactly how suicidal it was to use helicopters in anything other than an extremely permissive environment.
>helicopters aren't part of the breakthrough element
You are the only one peddling this idiotic idea, you filthy dishonest shill.
>you're only going to be able to commit your helicopters if you've either already degraded the enemy's AA
Long range AA is ineffective against heliopters because of the low level flight.
>Long range AA is ineffective against heliopters because of the low level flight.
Yeah but flying low makes you vulnerable to manpads, which have been the main cause of helicopter losses in ukraine
That's why you have infantry cover the ground your helicopter is flying over so that it's not exposed to the enemy fire. You also equip thermals on them to be able to better sniff out enemy teams in situations where this isn't possible and to better interact and support your guys on the ground. That's how combined arms work but that's an alien concept to rusBlack folk.
Russians lost a lot of helis even against Redeye's...
>You are the only one peddling this idiotic idea
the hind was literally conceived of as a flying BMP.
>Long range AA is ineffective against heliopters because of the low level flight.
yeah exactly, it's the short range stuff you gotta be worried about and that's much harder to degrade because there's more of it and it's easier to hide.
which is why helicopters wouldn't survive long against a peer adversary.
>the hind was literally conceived of as a flying BMP.
And we've already established that hind was a complete and utter failure.
> it's the short range stuff you gotta be worried about and that's much harder to degrade because there's more of it and it's easier to hide.
>which is why helicopters wouldn't survive long against a peer adversary.
VatBlack folk don't understand combined arms, water is wet everyone.
>And we've already established that hind was a complete and utter failure.
yes?
what exactly is your fricking point?
My point is hind isn't an attack helicopter and pretending they are trash like hind is disingenous, yet this is all you do, you filthy vatnik shill.
>My point is hind isn't an attack helicopter
i mean semantically it's more of an attack helicopter than an apache because the hind was designed with an offensive role in mind. the apache is more of a defence helicopter.
you can use whatever words you want, i don't really care what you call the hind.
>pretending they are trash like hind is disingenous
i didn't pretend they're all trash. they're just incredibly vulnerable and fragile weapons systems which is why they have a tiny niche as highly mobile ambush weapons to be used defensively, exactly as you described.
once again, what the frick is your point? why are you replying to my posts?
>which is why they have a tiny niche as highly mobile ambush weapons to be used defensively, exactly as you described.
you really dont know how apaches are used do you?
they arent just ambush vehicles, they are also used to provide top cover to both attacking or defending units
they also harass and interdict concentrations of enemy armor if any exist
they are not merely an defensive ambush vehicle nor is that even a major part of their role, they provide organic air support to ground forces
>you really dont know how apaches are used do you?
oh and which was the last major land war against a peer adversary that apaches participated in, anon?
firstly, apaches AREN'T used. secondly, if they WERE used in the manner you describe, i.e. as "organic air support" for a breakthrough element, they would all die and quickly unless they were held back until almost all the enemy's shorad was destroyed. and hey - maybe it would be worth it for them to die. it's war, people die, that doesn't mean they're not useful. if the enemy's defence is hanging by a thread and an apache strike will knock them out then it's worth it to do it even if the cost is hideous.
it is simply a god damn fricking fact that helicopters are incredibly vulnerable and fragile. i don't understand why you insist that they aren't, that there is some magic NATO doctrine that makes them ackshually super tough and durable spearhead-the-breakthrough units. they aren't. they never, ever will be. ironically, the helicopter that you keep calling dogshit is exactly what happens when you try and turn them into that.
you will now reply with some elaborate hypothetical about how the apaches can totally hug the terrain and avoid detection right up until they pop up from behind a convenient treeline and totally obliterate the enemy in a single attack before anyone can do anything about it and then the apaches all make it home in time for tea and medals. i don't care. i know how attack helicopters are supposed to be used - the mistake you make is the mistake all morono armchair generals do, which is thinking of the enemy as some static object. the enemy ALSO knows how attack helicopters are used anon and he's going to do things to stop them. and because all you need to shoot down an apache is a quad PKT, it's really not that hard.
>it is simply a god damn fricking fact that helicopters are incredibly vulnerable and fragile.
You're holding onto this idiotic and useless truism like it in any way helps your moronic non-argument but this won't make modern helicopters any less successful and won't make hind or other russian garbage not crap.
are you feeling ok bro? would you like to talk about it?
I'd feel better if there wasn't a filthy vatBlack person spreading myths in every thread on my board.
>makes them ackshually super tough and durable spearhead-the-breakthrough units
More braindead obsession from the mindbroken moron, lol.
Why did they burn them instead of using?
>and because all you need to shoot down an apache is a quad PKT
More vatBlack person lies, lol. Try to repeat the fake story some more, b***h boy.
>firstly, apaches AREN'T used
apaches are still organic to army units
>econdly, if they WERE used in the manner you describe, i.e. as "organic air support" for a breakthrough element, they would all die and quickly unless they were held back until almost all the enemy's shorad was destroyed.
again, this is some fantasy land you live in because thats how they are used in the present time
> they aren't. they never, ever will be. ironically, the helicopter that you keep calling dogshit is exactly what happens when you try and turn them into that.
youre arguing with the reality that apaches are organic to army units and committed to units on a flexible basis
if they maneuver elements need them, they will be assigned to support them
>you will now reply with some elaborate hypothetical about how the apaches can totally hug the terrain and avoid detection right up until they pop up from behind a convenient treeline
thats exactly what they are supposed to do
longbow upgrade allows them to monitor the battlefield without exposing themselves
>m. and because all you need to shoot down an apache is a quad PKT, it's really not that hard.
and an integrated network to detect the apache at long range
and SAMs and fighters to make sure the defenses arent DEADed
and the apache does not simply fire first
you are just arguing against the reality of how attack helos are used
>apaches are still organic to army units
yeah at the divisional/army level because they have niche uses.
>thats how they are used in the present time
and which peer adversary is the US presently engaging, anon?
>youre arguing with the reality that apaches are organic to army units and committed to units on a flexible basis
you're arguing against someone that doesn't exist. helicopters have niche uses, they're not fricking useless. i have been saying this for the whole fricking thread. i am not suggesting the US army start scrapping its apaches.
i am saying that helicopters are fragile machines, which makes them vulnerable when being fricking shot at.
i don't understand why this is so controversial.
>and an integrated network to detect the apache at long range
>and SAMs and fighters to make sure the defenses arent DEADed
>and the apache does not simply fire first
or y'know one guy with a cellphone and a few more dudes with PKT on a truck under a bedsheet two kilometres down the road. kinda like the iraqis did it.
yes you have to do work to kill helicopters. no, it is not some herculean task to do that work. unless you mean to suggest that US military would be totally helpless against a massed helicopter attack? no? then what the frick is your point? think before posting.
>i am saying that helicopters are fragile machines, which makes them vulnerable when being fricking shot at.
What a completely useless truism. What next, "People die when they are killed"?
>a few more dudes with PKT
You're really hanging onto this fake PKT story, aren't you?
>What a completely useless truism.
i agree, i don't understand why it's so controversial.
i mean people in this thread are literally telling me that apaches are ambush weapons and organic close air support and i'm not even disagreeing, but it's like everybody forgot that the apache was originally conceived of as a deep attack penetrator and how that mission role got scrapped after they kept getting shot down in iraq.
everybody knows this shit and yet there's so much seethe.
>You're really hanging onto this fake PKT story, aren't you?
i get that the invasion of iraq probably happened before you were born but read a bit of history some time anon.
> agree, i don't understand why it's so controversial.
It's not, it's competely disconnected from your moronic drivel and does nothing to justify it.
>but it's like everybody forgot that the apache was originally conceived of as a deep attack penetrator
Lol, here comes the real hindgay cope after all that backtracking. No, you're just a filthy slimy vatBlack person wallowing in your own shit and lies, that's all there is to it.
>everybody knows this shit
Aka, you made it up like the shit eater you are.
>i get that the invasion of iraq probably happened
And yet your PKT story is still fake.
>you made it up like the shit eater you are.
bruh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
>The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use.
>Thomas E. White, the U.S. Secretary of the Army, stated, "we were very fortunate we didn't lose more aircraft."
i get that this is literally the first time you are being made of aware of this event so i'll go easy on you, but bruh. the time to start reading about helicopters is not 5 hours into an argument about them. it was the experience in the iraq war that caused the shift away from use as deep penetrators to close air support. it was literally this battle that caused that change. now imagine if the iraqis were a peer adversary lmao.
helicopters. are. fragile.
Still no PKT story, you're still eating shit like your prostitute mother, lol.
>yeah at the divisional/army level because they have niche uses.
its about as niche as divisional artillery
meaning it will be used for maneuver war in support of the main attack
>how exactly do you imagine your mythical helicopter attack to work?
They provide fire support and defend against armor. You're the brain damaged subhuman that thinks attack helis are meant to be used like tanks.
>your helicopters hover behind a convenient mountain (because those are always available right, especially in the wide open plains that tanks are used in)
A treeline or a hill is all they need.
>a real war against a peer adversary is not like iraq.
There are no "peer advbersaries". your beloved russian shithole would lose to 1991 Iraq.
>my entire point is in fact the opposite. helicopters are not like tanks. that's why i contrasted tanks with helicopters.
0 IQ moron. Completely braidead.
>doesn't allow them to matrix dodge SPAAG tho
They outrange SPAAG and no system can react fast enough to a well executed helicopter ambush, especially with modern weapons.
>not if they all die, though, and that's the problem. people die in war so if you need to use helicopters then fine, do it, but they're so fragile and limited that the only time it's really justified to throw them away like that is as an "oh shit" button.
Except that never happened to anyone but your beloved vatniks, which is why you filthy shill project their failures onto everyone else.
have a nice day, armatard.
>they're not faster than bullets and hovering back into cover is only achievable if you aren't already dead.
their speed allows them to react quickly to targets presenting themselves
a tank company in reserve would need several hours to cover the same distance a helo could in a single one
this gives them heavy operation flexibility in a role no other vehicle other than jets could provide, but jets are not organic to army units and so have a much more top-down instead of bottom-up chain of command for their missions
>helicopters are incredibly fragile. it's not obvious when you look at for example iraq but imagine trying to use an apache against modern SPAAG.
despite this, they occupy a valuable tactical role that no other vehicle the army can fill
a flying weapon that can be kitted out to tackle a variety of targets and arrive on scene quickly without going through the air force
>you say fast, but they're not even fast as far as aerial targets go. if AA can hit a jet it sure as frick can deal with a helicopter. and this is the lesson that everyone has learned since the 90s.
they are faster than any land vehicle and unlike jets can operate from spartan airstrips close to the frontlines
and have much cheaper operating costs than a jet per hour of flight
this makes them an excellent middile ground compared to calling in an airstrike, because it gives you some overhead cover that doesnt require a jet already circling above you
>that's why tanks carry 60 rounds and helicopters carry like 4 missiles.
Fricking braindead moron. Literally pea brain moronic Black person that thinks attack helicopters are like tanks.
its a flexible transport vehicle that can literally fly. In wars in places that have poor infrastructure or where rapid flexible deployment is important they have done quite well
Forget it anon, he'll just come up with a hundred other bullshit excuses about how russian equipment failures are totally not because of russians and their moronic failed designs.
Such is the way of the armatard.
I feel like the Hind is the most battle proven helicopter of all time. it has been in constant use since the 70s and its still being used by both sides in the Ukraine conflict. Afghanistan in the early 80s is probably one of the most challenging warzones to operate a helicopter in and it did pretty well there all things considered.
>it did pretty well
It's failed and got wrecked everywhere it appeared, full stop. You're delusional to pretend otherwise.
horrible casualties in a difficult enviorment doesnt make it a failure. all military equipment would be a failure by that logic
Its moronic design make it a difficult environment. Just like vatniks being worthless subhumans turn any war into mindless zerg rush of meat waves of illiterate mobiks.
im thinking about the altitude, the dust and the stingers. even the US saw the value in them because when they bought them
>im thinking about the altitude, the dust and the stingers.
You're not thinking at all, you're just a coping homosexual.
>even the US saw the value in them because when they bought them
lol, you're moronic
So name a single chopper from the 70s that was better at tank hunting than a Hind with a AT-3 Sagger. You can't because there wasn't one.
Most Soviet gear from the 60s and 70s isn't bad for it's time, it just hasn't been updated and is now obsolete while still in frontline service.
How about the Apache with Hellfire?
>70s
>apache
>introduction 1986
You mean the Apache that entered service in 1986 and the Hellfire from 1984?
>So name a single chopper from the 70s that was better at tank hunting than a Hind with a AT-3 Sagger
Literally anything, including a Huey with SS.11s. Hunting tanks with MCLOS ATGMs from a helicopter is moronic to begin with, and trying to shill for the piece of shit that is the hind from that perspective is armatard-tier dishonesty.
So MCLOS straffing is worse than unguided? Is that really what you are going with here?
Yes, that's how it is in the real world. Now go get blown to pieces in ukraine your worthless mud blooded piece of subhuman shit.
I considered it but my GF is sick so I can't really leave to help rebuild Ukraine (electrician), I can hate Russia while still knowing their shit wasn't terrible 60 years ago.
Cobra with TOWs
They were alright. But nothing too fancy until they struck gold with the T-64 and later the T-72.
T-64 was somewhat ahead of it's time
By the time T-72 was in widespread service NATO had caught up with their own APFSDS and new mbts arriving in the late 70s/early 80s
There was something of a gap in the late 60s to the late 70s thanks to the failure of projects such as mbt 70 to deliver a vehicle into service.
The T-64 and T-72B were probably the best tanks of the Cold War until the Leo2, Abrams and Challenger came in.
>T-72B
That came after the L2, M1 and Challenger.
And all T-64 variants before the T-64B weren't that good. Still a huge improvement over the T-10 and T-62.
>weren't that good
they were better than anything NATO could field
>they were better than anything NATO could field
>engine life: 100 hours at best, couldn' it was limited to local defense in the surroundings of Khrakiv
Sounds like a POS tbqh.
couldn't go too far and it was limited*
>could
They had better armor and more powerful guns than anything NATO would field but they had plenty of issues of their own and were basically compared to the tanks made in the 50s. MBT-70 was nigh everything T-64B pretended to be way before it reached testing, but the costs and issues piled up enough that US and Germany decided it wasn't worth making a new tank back then, compounded by their lack of knowledge about new soviet developments. It'd take a few years before they learned about it and sped up the design of the new tanks.
It wasn't that bad after 1973 when the most glaring issues were finally fixed, which is more of the real start of service date. It was still ripe with issues but now it was largely because illiterate soviet cavemen were incapable of doing the proper maintenance on it.
>We have not requested any supernatural requirements for the tank: we need an engine with a durability of 300 engine hours, and with 3,000 kilometers.Testing of the latest batch, per the report of our people, did not go well. Therefore I have had to take the T-64A out of the
western divisions. By August 1, 1971 the T-64 tanks will be retired to the combat training park.
>after 1973
Even after fixing that the engine life was 500 hours in the 80s iirc. A modern T-72 has 1000 at minimum and 2000 hours as common. The T-72B was a good idea in comparison, a hull simpler technologically but with comparable turret to a T-80U (iirc).
T-64 was the armata before the armata and there's the idea of a "war production version" but in the end the T-80 was the definitive T-64. At least it wasn't unreliable, the Chechen war showed that the engine wasn't its only problem.
chechen wars, just like ukrainian war right now, was a failure of doctrine, at last when it comes to tank usage
It wasn't great but it wasn't really a deal breaker either by that point and certainly not a reason to adopt another tank alongside it instead of focusing on improving it. The real reason T-72 went through is because no russian tank plant could produce T-64 armor arrays like Kharkiv did(and even then they suffered from numerous defects), leaving them out. T-64 would be the more numerous tank between the two all the way until the 80s anyway.
>The T-72B was a good idea in comparison, a hull simpler technologically but with comparable turret to a T-80U (iirc).
Only a few prototypes adopted the T-80U turret that morphed into what would become the T-90. Actual, regular T-72Bs were still a slapdash tank with primitive rangefinder with next to no integration like the T-72A , just with more armor and 1st gen night vision.
T-80 wasn't quantifiably different from the T-64 and T-72, minus the fire control for the latter. It's really just the moronic soviet doctrine that tried to justify the 3 main battle tanks they had because of internal bickering by pretending the T-80 is some magical wonder machine when all it had over T-64 was better acceleration and worse range and reliability. Oh, and massively increased price too. Most T-80 variants were made by directly copying the T-64's turret, changing armor array to that of the T-72 and slapping it onto the new hull several years later. Only when they finally axed the T-64 did they reuse the prospective developments for it to make the new T-80U, a tank so expensive that they made less than 500 of them during the last 6 years of their existence.
Best soviet eqipment was 2nd rate gear that was still cheap enough to be produced in vast quantities cheaply, allowing it to fill soviet numbers and be exported to thirdies. See: Mig-21, T-55, BMP/BTR, Mi-8 and so on. They were never good but at least they weren't all bad like most of their other shit.
Besides these, the closest they came to state of the art was in their stolen copies of western gear, the Mig-15, the copies US radars and subs, many of their small arms, cars, electronic componets, computers, aircraft and so on. Usually though even their copies were anything but modern anyway.
T-62 was good
Their ATGMs were good
Strela-10 is decent
S-300 is decent
BMP-2/3 is ok
MiG-29 is an ok multirole
Kilo class subs and their derivatives are pretty good
>mig-29
i thought that it was mostly considered to really be quite dogshit
Yes. The only good things about it were the helmet mounted sight and off boresight missiles.
https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm
cope and sneedthe
>slavaboos
>on my /k/
>T-62 was good
lol
>Their ATGMs were good
lol
>Strela-10 is decent
lol
>MiG-29
>multirole
lmao
>T-62 was good
lmao
>Their ATGMs were good
lolno
>BMP-2/3 is ok
lol lmao even. In what timeline do you live to think that they are good btw?
>S-300 is decent
decent ! = good
>MiG-29 is an ok multirole
>multirole
t-64 is good
t-80 is good
TOR is very good
BUK is one of the best civilian aircraft killer
VAL is probably one of the best small arm weapon there is
MT-LB is a good gavin conterpart
mig-25 was good (for its time and purpose)
TOS-1 was good
mi-8, ka-27 are one of the best transport/troop support heli ever produced
subs were good
an-225 was cool
most of their transpot planes were good (black tulip, il-76, and others)
tu-95 is the russian b-52
mi-26 is cool
all wunderwaffe tier meme planes are cool as frick (A-40, be-200 etc)
Soviet ATGMs were better then NATO ATGMs until the 80s, with things like TOW-2
>Soviet ATGMs were better then NATO ATGMs
lol, lmao even
like wich atgm? the gayot or the Konkurs (i know there are otheres but these are the best man portable atgm by far)?
I'll remind you that the TOW had plenty of succes with israel against t-72s
it had some problems and criticism like every cutting edge project but it was a very good tank ( for war thunder use HE ammo and shoot at the top of the enemy turret)
>these are the best man portable atgm by far
Lol, moronic vatBlack person subhuman.
>he early model Cobra was noticeably worse than the early model Hind
Fricking stupid vatBlack person homosexual.
>the cobra is two years older
And a filthy liar at that.
>T-62 was good
what's wrong with the t-62? i'm about to unlock it in war thunder
It was functionally a T-55 with a bigger cannon for 50% higher price and due to its shell ejection mechanism had an abysmal fire rate, like 5 shots a minute and its cannon had to elevate up during each reload, completely losing your sight picture in the process.
Actually scrap that, the fire rate was even worse - 4rpm. And you have to reacquire the sight picture after each reload.
oh shit i can't read i though you ment the t-64.
the t-62 has a oversized gun with a shell ejection system that requires lots of maintinence to work, little to no ammo in the turret killing the fire rate, cramped as frick slowing the fire rate, shit tier vision for all members and the only saving grace is that it had apfds.
among all the soviet man portable atgms these are the ones with the most succes yes
>mong all the soviet man portable atgms these are the ones
like it matters. least shit is still shit.
>the ones with the most succes
You're a deluded moron.
>like it matters. least shit is still shit.
yes they were shit I've never said that russian atgms were good. these are the best atgms russia has ever produced
If you rate the T-62 as cramped, what the frick is Leopard 1.
Seems to be case of Soviet hurr durr bad, HATO good
>Soviet hurr durr bad, HATO good
That's always been objectively true. >Inb4 salty vatBlack person loser cope.
>this is a good loading station because it is a HATO tank
Unironically better than Soviet tanks. Again, it is bad, but the Leo 1 is still a yatch to the soviet tugboats.
>this is a good loading station because it is a HATO tank
I dunno. Doesn't look totally non-functional in motion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/oest4j/leopard_1a5_loading_inside_view/
Anyone got any videos on how much room the loader has in a T-54 or T-62? Can't find anything on a quick google.
God, I guess I'm spoiled by the Abrams' ergonomics because the Leopard looks awful, which I'm sure it isn't.
Here you go anon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD13Z8DlS4A . I believe i've seen a video where you can rotate the camera around on your own but i couldn't find it.
T-62
Checked. I'd like to note that the turret floor was a later addition and the T-54s(as they were called) during most of the 50s didn't have it, leaving the loader in an even more precarious position that shown here.
I'm honestly kinda confounded that these turrets somehow end up as greater crew manglers than the T64/72 with their autoloader.
Leo 1 certainly looks more cramped than an Abrams, but seems way more crew friendly the the manually loaded slave shit.
boy would ERA even help with those paper thin armor...?
As long as it won't cave-in the armor behind it wit will protect rather well. T-72 has ERA on the sides of the hull and the turret where there's less than 100mm of armor behind them and can still resist RPGs and such if they hit it.
t72 was and is a very good tank. mig 23 was pretty good. the light machine guns are goated
mig 29 was and is a complete trash fire
>mig 23 was pretty good
>mig 29 was and is a complete trash fire
b8
>mig 23 was pretty good
The only capable version was the MLD, that came too late because the US had already adopted 4th generation fighters.
MiG-23M/MF could at best compete with early F-4s in terms of BVR capability, look down/shoot down was only a theoretical capability until the R-24/N008-2 of the MLD.
>that came too late because the USSR had already adopted 4th generation fighters.
Ftfy and it's even worse that way.
>look down/shoot down was only a theoretical capability until the R-24/N008-2 of the MLD
It remained theoretical after that, the radar was still trash with no changes.
t72 is garbage
mig-23 is even worse garbage
Russia had arguable parity up until 1970 and had almost completely lost this parity by 1980.
American had refreshed their whole inventory, British, Germans and French were modernizing while Soviet Union had just committed to Afgan war and their armed forces had practically stagnated and playing catch up.
Their Su-27 got delayed by 5-10 years and the MiG 29 was as limited as the F-16 up to the late 90s. Blame the avionics and their klimov-lyulka turbofans.
Air power and PGM were the new meta in the 70s, by that time the soviet union already was too behind and was wasting time with white elephants like the tupolev supersonic bombers.
Up until 1960s, brute-forcing was enough to get by.
But afterwards, precision instruments and advanced electronics were necessary to stay cutting edge, and Soviet Union could not keep up with the west in either.
>meta
kys
It's interesting (and possibly just coincidence) how the very first microprocessors hit the market right around 1970, and computers become increasingly ubiquitous in both commercial and military systems by about 1980.
One thing that it changes is supply chains: businesses in the 1950s-60s needed huge warehouses for products, but Just-In-Time manufacturing makes things a lot more efficient.
I like the T-80 but it got outdated very quickly.
The Russians actually did ok in the very early days of computing but because of their weak internal economy they could never scale production enough to compete internationally and their production was ultimately killed by imports.
Semiconductor superiority remains a large factor in why the United States has the most advanced military equipment in the world, so you're probably onto something there
yeah. so efficient that any disturbance to the supply chain immediately blows up inflation as well as causes multi-year delays and hick ups with delivering end goods
its stupid common sense defiling shit that only the demented brain of a corner cutting bean counter can see as some great innovation
good for what?
good for allowing a highly trained crew to be an effective unit on the battlefield and keep them alive? No.
good for throwing 30,000 buttraped farmers across the fulda gap in the mechanized equivalent of a human wave attack? Most likely?.
At least the Soviets knew what they were about. At some point these dumbfricks decided to sell a cheap tank that they could just diarrhea off the production lines as "western-cucking super tonks."
Anyone who fell for it deserves what they got.
Technology was always important. The Soviets were sometimes ahead, then behind far more often at the end. Both mass and technology are important. But technology has improved so much where it can handedly destroy a military prioritizing more mass. This is why the US generally supports the best technology and backs it up with a logistics system that can keep the smaller numbers into the fight.
No. The reason is because the US is forced to send thousands of troops overseas. The longer the distance, the more men you must allocate to logistics. This means that the US simply cannot play the mass game.
This implies that US wouldn't invest into technology if they weren't fighting overseas, which is not the case.
And here's a bonus.
The T-64 was very competitive with if not superior to the latest Western tanks (M60, Chieftain, Leo1, AMX30) when it was introduced.
T-62, mig-21 and su-7 were really good for the time.
Is it just one guy quoting anything even remotely positive about Soviet gear and going "lol lmao" or what
Yes. Every soviet lover will be put down like the insane rabid dog he is.
>any Soviet equipment after the T-55 ever good?
HIPs are good utility helicopters
Their aircraft and training for said aircraft were good in the 80s. At least for fighters.
Chornobaivka never 4get
The Soviets lead in many advances of tank doctrine and design during the cold war, shit like smoothbore barrels, gun fired ATGM's, early APFSDS, widespread use of composite armour etc.
Contrary to popular belief but at least in the realm of air defence and land warfare technologies, the Soviets were either on parity or leading against the west until the mid-late 80's.
>Contrary to popular belief but at least in the realm of air defence and land warfare technologies
Contrary to popular belief, they were never good and it's all been smoke and mirrors.
If you're referring to the Red Army as a fighting organisation, that's entirely seperate to the discussion about their equipment, many of which until the 80's was on par with Western kit and fit inside a cohesive doctrine.
>If you're referring to the Red Army as a fighting organisation, that's entirely seperate to the discussion about their equipment
Cope.
>many of which until the 80's was on par with Western kit and fit inside a cohesive doctrine.
That's also cope, a teary fantasy and the final refuge for the battered slavaboo.
if you don't have any actual argument other than your preconceived notions of Soviet equipment pre-1980's as inferior because....I don't know your dreams, take that 9mm in your bedside drawer, tell your mum you love her and kys
>lead in many advances of tank doctrine and design during the cold war, shit like smoothbore barrels
The T-95 already had a smoothbore guns and composite armor tested in the 50s.
It also fired APFSDS which is entirely redudnant to mention because that's the purpose of the smoothbore gun in the first place. I guess he needed to add something else to his tiny list.
oh wow a prototype tank that didn't see service, amazing comeback
The T-64 was closer to a chronic prototype until the 70s. Like the armata of the 60s.
It didn't need to, soviet tanks were a paper tiger anyways.
They were ahead in terms of adoption in some areas, definitely but not leading by any means, their FCS was still shit, their sights were shit, crew ergonomics was and is still shit, reliability was and is still shit. Fricks sakes everytime a shitstorm kicked up in the Middle East the Israelis would remain with the upper hand
>inb4 monkey models, bad crews etc.
monkey models is cope and Israeli crews weren't exactly that much better.
>their FCS was still shit
they really lagged behind here
T-62s still used WW2-style gun-laying, just enhanced with a range finder
with the gunner still only really having access to his telescopic sight and having to manually lay the gun
the M60A1 mechanical ballistic computer was slaved to the gun itself, so as soon as range was found, the gun was already at the proper elevation
the T-72 had its own ballistic computer so at least the gunner wasnt trying to do math in the middle of battle
but it wasnt slaved to the gun so they still had to turn cranks and gears to the value the computer spat out
the M60A3 then came out with a digital computer, only the T-64B ever had such a computer in soviet service, which could automatically keep a target locked-on with the gunner only needing to lase the target
>T-62s still used WW2-style gun-laying, just enhanced with a range finder
It was a shitty stadiametric range finder, basically something you'd find on a rifle scope. That hardly even qualifies as a real range finder on a vehicle.
>the M60A1 mechanical ballistic computer was slaved to the gun itself, so as soon as range was found, the gun was already at the proper elevation
Actually this feature started back with the one of the M48 variants.
>the M60A3 then came out with a digital computer
Technically M60A2 did it first, M60A3 just re-implemented it in a more functional tank.
>only the T-64B ever had such a computer in soviet service
T-80B copy pasted the entire turret from it so it inherited it as well.
>It was a shitty stadiametric range finder, basically something you'd find on a rifle scope. That hardly even qualifies as a real range finder on a vehicle.
Could have sworn they had coincidence rangefinders
>Could have sworn they had coincidence rangefinders
If you look at a T-62 turret, you'll notice that it lacks the prominent "horns" housing the optical elements of a coincidence rangefinder.
>actual unironic vatniks
>on my /k/
I'm surprised at this point tbh.
While I disagree with the hindgay trying to claim all attack helicopters are obsolete, I don't think he actually is one. The actual /k/ vatniks who would seethepost about NATO vs PACT are much more belligerent and generally delusional about the quality of Soviet equipment vs NATO's.
Anon Pantsir shill continued to screech about how Pantsir was good after NK, Syria and Libya, there's also Armatard who continued to shill the Armata after it broke down prior to a parade and never made it out of the development phase and for the Su-57 after that embarrassing crash. There's like half a dozen other shills I don't care to remember. These threads
>OK /k/, which Soviet weapons were good?
threads get thrown up fricking weekly at this point. They're never going away. The only thing the shills seemed to have stopped shilling is the Ka-52, I'd assume because of just how embarrassing the losses have been.
>The only thing the shills seemed to have stopped shilling is the Ka-52, I'd assume because of just how embarrassing the losses have been.
I think the wobble wobble is just too good of a counter and their thermals were exposed as a laughingstock in addition to that.
>for the Su-57 after that embarrassing crash
It was fun to witness his mental break after that though. Like he had a moment of clarity at his miserable existence and began to unironically advocate for total zigger death in the middle of his hysterical falseflagging,
yes? obviously. they had a over 15 year advantage in tank design with the t64 and they produced plenty of good equipment. It was only by the 80's that they started falling behind on tanks.
like this narritive of russian stuff was never good is just shortsighted and frankly dangerous, dont underestimate your enemy.
I feel this mindset has been informed by US forces rolling over completely incompetent middle eastern dictators with mostly t55 series tanks using vastly superior tech.
Cold war was just a series of US overestimating some soviet junk, investing into counters for it and then finding out it was a complete nothing, over and over again all the way until soviets fell apart. Giving them credit under the flawed pretense of realism only reinforces the fearmongering they spread and gives them fuel to try again.
If it was that simple you'd think the US would have won at least one proxy war.
They've won tons of them but chose to ignore them because this doesn't fit your commie fellating fantasies.
>US forces rolling over completely incompetent middle eastern dictators
Just like USSR, lol.