WarPac vs. NATO Tank and Armored Vehicle Designs/Doctrine

[PsihoKekec]

The Russians are totally not copying the West, these are their own ideas REEEEEEEEE!!!!

Jokes aside, like all designs, they must conform to the overall military doctrine of the nation that produces them and Russian military doctrine for the last 15 years has changed a lot compared to Soviet military doctrine, so the designs that came since 2000 mirror these changes. What element of these changes is from Western influences and what is from their own experiences is up for debate.

 

[Zachowon]

The Russians are totally not copying the West, these are their own ideas REEEEEEEEE!!!!

Jokes aside, like all designs, they must conform to the overall military doctrine of the nation that produces them and Russian military doctrine for the last 15 years has changed a lot compared to Soviet military doctrine, so the designs that came since 2000 mirror these changes. What element of these changes is from Western influences and what is from their own experiences is up for debate.

The way war is going to be fought is outdated in the way the Soviets had been planning for. The US has been keeping up with the evolutions

 

[Aaron Fox]

Seems like they are following western designs..wierd.

It's almost entirely due to the fact that physics and geometry come into play. The Soviets learned during the Cold War that composites are spacy and thus hard to put on rounded volumes and due to how the Soviets worked, they dominated what would become '2nd World' or 'Communist' tank design. The West, oddly enough, learned from the Nazis in that every cubic meter counts so they were better prepared for composite's intricacies.

Why do I always see people claim that the eastern design for tanks and IFVs and AFVs are supiror to Western designs yet here the Russians are taking after the west...

That's really because 1) its the internet and due to the law of human stupidity you'll get those idiots, 2) Russian trolls and bots are abound right now in an attempt to undermine as much of the US's hold on global politics as possible just so their leaders can go back to the 'Glory Days of the USSR', and 3) the internet megaphone effect.

 

[Zachowon]

It's almost entirely due to the fact that physics and geometry come into play. The Soviets learned during the Cold War that composites are spacy and thus hard to put on rounded volumes and due to how the Soviets worked, they dominated what would become '2nd World' or 'Communist' tank design. The West, oddly enough, learned from the Nazis in that every cubic meter counts so they were better prepared for composite's intricacies.

That's really because 1) its the internet and due to the law of human stupidity you'll get those idiots, 2) Russian trolls and bots are abound right now in an attempt to undermine as much of the US's hold on global politics as possible just so their leaders can go back to the 'Glory Days of the USSR', and 3) the internet megaphone effect.

The US has the most tested tech outside of USSR, and even then it is only against thier own vehicles.
Perhaps the west knows what works best against the east and the east only thinks it knows.
America and Britan took designs from each other and germany to create thier tanks.

Yeah. I hate it especially on youtube and out sister site. They always claim the same damn thing. Russia stronk! When in reality, sure they were powerful but honestly thier vehicles were always overrated compared to the west

 

[Aaron Fox]

Yeah. I hate it especially on youtube and out sister site. They always claim the same damn thing. Russia stronk! When in reality, sure they were powerful but honestly thier vehicles were always overrated compared to the west

That only really happens with Leo1 and the Russia Asskisser Brigade, most of the time it is comparing things and try to figure out the winner. Remember, we thought that we had the weapons to take out Soviet armor but after gaining the better monkey models of East Germany and managing to buy top-of-the-line equipment during the collapse of the USSR, we discovered that, no, our understanding of Soviet equipment is far spottier than we would have liked and our ammunition wasn't as effective as we would have hoped.

That is why we kept improving our APFSDS rounds after the Cold War and why rounds like the Silver Dart were created. Based on the study of the not-crap monkey models and the real good shit that the USSR was keeping to itself, NATO's assumptions were discovered to be quite off the mark than originally planned for.

 

[Zachowon]

That only really happens with Leo1 and the Russia Asskisser Brigade, most of the time it is comparing things and try to figure out the winner. Remember, we thought that we had the weapons to take out Soviet armor but after gaining the better monkey models of East Germany and managing to buy top-of-the-line equipment during the collapse of the USSR, we discovered that, no, our understanding of Soviet equipment is far spottier than we would have liked and our ammunition wasn't as effective as we would have hoped.

That is why we kept improving our APFSDS rounds after the Cold War and why rounds like the Silver Dart were created. Based on the study of the not-crap monkey models and the real good shit that the USSR was keeping to itself, NATO's assumptions were discovered to be quite off the mark than originally planned for.

They hate me a lot on SB russian military arms thread. Because I question RUSSIAN STRONK.
They were not as effective, but still effective. We further increased our capabilities as we always are. NATO would have still won without nukes. The equipment was just that much better. With the exception of ADA vs AS. US and NATO focused on the later, but the USSR focused on the ADA, which I will admit are a big issue, especially with what I learned today.
On the ground both sides were relatively even, with NATO eaking it out from what I have noticed in my time in the MI branch of the ARMY.

 

[Aaron Fox]

They hate me a lot on SB russian military arms thread. Because I question RUSSIAN STRONK.
They were not as effective, but still effective. We further increased our capabilities as we always are. NATO would have still won without nukes. The equipment was just that much better. With the exception of ADA vs AS. US and NATO focused on the later, but the USSR focused on the ADA, which I will admit are a big issue, especially with what I learned today.
On the ground both sides were relatively even, with NATO eaking it out from what I have noticed in my time in the MI branch of the ARMY.

You've got to acknowledge that in a WW3 scenario, outside of the -if I remember Soviet doctrine right- Cat-C and low-end Cat-B units, NATO was going to find out the hard way that their anti-tank weapons were built upon assumptions that were flawed in retrospect. This is going to be a major problem with the various NATO militaries because they'll be dying because of that. It also didn't help that our assumptions on Soviet doctrine were based more on guessing than anything. I mean we didn't know that Shilka crews were trained to also target ATGMs until some time after the collapse of the USSR... at least that's what I've heard.

While some of the really heavy NATO weapons (oddly enough, the Soviets were afraid of tanks armed with the 120mm be German or British) were going to be nasty surprises for the Soviets in WW3 (i.e. the Mavericks and their kin), NATO was going to be on the receiving end of a rather nasty surprise because of the assumptions used to make their equipment. At the end of the day, WW3 will be bloody and would probably end with the Soviets initiating a de-escalation tac-nuke strike as the tide turned.

 

[Zachowon]

You've got to acknowledge that in a WW3 scenario, outside of the -if I remember Soviet doctrine right- Cat-C and low-end Cat-B units, NATO was going to find out the hard way that their anti-tank weapons were built upon assumptions that were flawed in retrospect. This is going to be a major problem with the various NATO militaries because they'll be dying because of that. It also didn't help that our assumptions on Soviet doctrine were based more on guessing than anything. I mean we didn't know that Shilka crews were trained to also target ATGMs until some time after the collapse of the USSR... at least that's what I've heard.

While some of the really heavy NATO weapons (oddly enough, the Soviets were afraid of tanks armed with the 120mm be German or British) were going to be nasty surprises for the Soviets in WW3 (i.e. the Mavericks and their kin), NATO was going to be on the receiving end of a rather nasty surprise because of the assumptions used to make their equipment. At the end of the day, WW3 will be bloody and would probably end with the Soviets initiating a de-escalation tac-nuke strike as the tide turned.

There are multiple sources I have read that make it more even, also multiple WEPs that I have read that also show it being more even as well, and go into discussing the cons of said weapons either.
Both groups focused on different doctrines. The US went for a heavy reliance on Air superiority which would make the fact that the tank dualing matches were more even then one shot kill for them. Artilery is another thing both sides had heavy focus on.

 

[ATP]

The Russians are totally not copying the West, these are their own ideas REEEEEEEEE!!!!

Jokes aside, like all designs, they must conform to the overall military doctrine of the nation that produces them and Russian military doctrine for the last 15 years has changed a lot compared to Soviet military doctrine, so the designs that came since 2000 mirror these changes. What element of these changes is from Western influences and what is from their own experiences is up for debate.

Soviet doctrine used masses of tanks/up to 60.000 or more/ with mobilised crews.Of course, that they must be as cheap and easy to use as possible.
But now,Russia could not maintain 60.000+ tanks, and even if they could,they would not found people to crew them.So,they must copy USA,becouse now they must use proffesional crews.

But soviet idea was correct - if they could send 10 tanks at one NATO,they would eventually win.And casaulties ? like comrade Stalin said, we/soviets/ had many people.

 

[Zachowon]

Soviet doctrine used masses of tanks/up to 60.000 or more/ with mobilised crews.Of course, that they must be as cheap and easy to use as possible.
But now,Russia could not maintain 60.000+ tanks, and even if they could,they would not found people to crew them.So,they must copy USA,becouse now they must use proffesional crews.

But soviet idea was correct - if they could send 10 tanks at one NATO,they would eventually win.And casaulties ? like comrade Stalin said, we/soviets/ had many people.

That also only works if the enemy doesn't have air superiority

 

[PsihoKekec]

Considering that their own air force was no pushover and they had strong mobile SAM network, the idea was that by the time NATO could secure the air superiority their armies would have been trashed and negotiations would have started.

 

[Zachowon]

The thing is, US for instance was also more then willing to use long range ballistic missles, as well as the reason for the B2 and B1. Fast low flying aircraft to deliver a large payload before they can get radar lock.

SAMs are only good if they are able to lock on in time to also track the target before getting destroyed. Which is why the US relies heavily on combined arms doctrine in every sense of the word. Navy ballistic missles, Army and Marine artillery rocket and standard, air force long range air to ground and CAS cabalitiles. First step is wiping out SAM followed by beating enemy air force. Sometimes at the same time. Just look at what happend to Iraq

 

[PsihoKekec]

Are we talking 80's here or the current day?

Which is why the US relies heavily on combined arms doctrine in every sense of the word.

And so did Soviets and Russians still do.

First step is wiping out SAM followed by beating enemy air force.

There is a minor problem with this approach, it can be applied only to the vastly weaker opponents, but not against Soviets and today Russians, who have integrated AA network coordinated with Air Force, you would have to engage both at once and would pay the price for doing it.

Just look at what happend to Iraq

Poorly trained Arabs using outdated monkey models losing badly when faced with opponents who actually know what they are doing is not exactly proving anything. On the other hand the Saudis with all the shiniest USA tech are being regularly humiliated by flip-flop wearing, AK toting guys, high on khat.
If we look at the bombing Yugoslavia on the other hand, despite flying some 15.000 AA suppression missions, NATO forces failed to destroy a single SA-3 or SA-6 launcher, despite the said system not being upgraded in 30 years. They also failed to seriously degrade the combat capabilities of YNA, destroying fewer than two dozen armored vehicles and completely failing to interrupt the YNA use of helicopters. In the end they had to resort to systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure to terrorize the country into yielding.

Fast low flying aircraft to deliver a large payload before they can get radar lock.

And this is why Shilka, Tunguska and Pantsir are a thing, while USA has no such capabilities, just MANPADS.

 

[ATP]

I once read about Czech design T.25 made for germans during WW2 - medium tank with autoloader.It could fire as fast as 3 or 4 T.34.Germans never let Czech made even one prototype.
But if they did....war would end in 1945 anyway,but mabe soviets would take only part of Poland,not all ?
P.S there were earlier designs- V.8H,T.21,T.24 - all as good as Pz.4 .German never made them,too.Nobody knew why - although i read in one article,that Hitler opposed that becouse he wonted medium tank made only by germans.Probably hoax,even Adolf the idiot could be not that stupid.

 

[Zachowon]

I once read about Czech design T.25 made for germans during WW2 - medium tank with autoloader.It could fire as fast as 3 or 4 T.34.Germans never let Czech made even one prototype.
But if they did....war would end in 1945 anyway,but mabe soviets would take only part of Poland,not all ?
P.S there were earlier designs- V.8H,T.21,T.24 - all as good as Pz.4 .German never made them,too.Nobody knew why - although i read in one article,that Hitler opposed that becouse he wonted medium tank made only by germans.Probably hoax,even Adolf the idiot could be not that stupid.

Plenty of Czech made tanks. the Pz 35 and Pz 32. Also multiple tanks had autoloaders, they were just such small caliber it would not help much.
It was probably never shown to be sucessful.

 

[Zachowon]

Are we talking 80's here or the current day?


And so did Soviets and Russians still do.


There is a minor problem with this approach, it can be applied only to the vastly weaker opponents, but not against Soviets and today Russians, who have integrated AA network coordinated with Air Force, you would have to engage both at once and would pay the price for doing it.


Poorly trained Arabs using outdated monkey models losing badly when faced with opponents who actually know what they are doing is not exactly proving anything. On the other hand the Saudis with all the shiniest USA tech are being regularly humiliated by flip-flop wearing, AK toting guys, high on khat.
If we look at the bombing Yugoslavia on the other hand, despite flying some 15.000 AA suppression missions, NATO forces failed to destroy a single SA-3 or SA-6 launcher, despite the said system not being upgraded in 30 years. They also failed to seriously degrade the combat capabilities of YNA, destroying fewer than two dozen armored vehicles and completely failing to interrupt the YNA use of helicopters. In the end they had to resort to systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure to terrorize the country into yielding.



And this is why Shilka, Tunguska and Pantsir are a thing, while USA has no such capabilities, just MANPADS.

They were mainly for low flying slower aircraft and rotary wing helicopter. The B1 and B2 were made specifically to fly low and fast or high and fast to avoid getting hit and drop thierbload, be it nuclear or conventional.

I'm going off both a mixture of tje 80s and what I know now having to look into all of this stuff

 

[PsihoKekec]

I once read about Czech design T.25 made for germans during WW2 - medium tank with autoloader.It could fire as fast as 3 or 4 T.34.Germans never let Czech

I have a slight feeling that the autoloader would have been as trouble free as Panther's gearbox and engine. It's also unlikely that this tank would see any serious production before 1944 and would have no effect on war. Not to mention that it needed special materials that were in short supply.

there were earlier designs- V.8H,T.21,T.24 - all as good as Pz.4 .German never made them,too.Nobody knew why

That is simple, all military procurement was and still is a political game. Škoda had no political influence in Nazi Germany and were therby reduced to subcontractor. Also adding yet another tank chassis design to OOB is bad for logistics and German logistics were already badly strained.

 

[paulobrito]

High and fast - SAMs and fighters kill you. Low and fast - SAMs / SPAAGS kill you. Against a competent opponent with equivalent / almost equivalent weapons, the capabilities of penetrating enemy air space is way more difficult than the USAF as used to get against Arabs and co.

 

[Zachowon]

High and fast - SAMs and fighters kill you. Low and fast - SAMs / SPAAGS kill you. Against a competent opponent with equivalent / almost equivalent weapons, the capabilities of penetrating enemy air space is way more difficult than the USAF as used to get against Arabs and co.

SAMs have to be turned on, and cant stay on 24/7. Generaly you over lap them coverage wise so when one is down another is on. Having them on also provides a way for the enemy to get a location on said System.
SPAAGs on the other hand, are only good if the EW radars detect the enemy and are able to get the Fire control and Target Tracking/ Acquisition radars on in time in order to allow the ones associated with the weapon systems to activate.

This is kinda my specialty.

 

[paulobrito]

Russia like adversaries have plenty of redundant, multi-layered systems including AWAC type ones. They are also well trained and have a capable doctrine. With these types of systems, the invader is detected at longer distances than by the Iraquis for sure. And after you are detected the probabilities of penetrating enemy territory diminish considerably. Again, is a completely different game than going against the Iraqui Army. Add that they have EW systems that degrade considerably your capabilities - also a thing that USAF and Cº don't have played against for a long time. A modern army can completely fuck up your gps guided weapons for example. I don't say is not possible, just that cost a lot more - probably more than you are prepared to pay. Also that kind of adversary has weapons with range and precision to hit your bases / ships in return - another thing you are not used to deal.