JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Please check the NATO mission - 'an attack on a member of NATO requires the support of all other members of NATO in a position to give it.'

Please let's move away from all this - it had already resulted in a swathe of posts being taken down on this thread by the Mods.

I can tell you that it really gets tiresome very quickly.
Not saying it shouldn't have been done. Just saying it couldn't have been done. Facts are facts.
 
And this not-so-gentle reminder that the UK can do nothing without your assistance somehow has a direct link to the inability of the Russians to build the requisite number of new tanks, right?

Gimme a break.
OK. I'm guilty of thread drift. I shall now chastise myself and exit this discussion.

:s0128:

However, I did not say that Britain was incapable of independent military action. Only that the Falklands campaign would not have been possible. Which is the truth.
 
Back to the topic... isn't it sort of similar to the US, in which we keep getting real good and cool ideas but just can't realistically pay for them without massive subsidies and without needing to find a lot of investors? Wasn't that sort of what happened to all the technology envisioned in the SDI programs ?
 
I mean.. look at the F-22A. USAF wanted to replace F-15s on a 1:1 basis but Congress capped production and bam individual costs skyrocketed. Ditto for the B-2s to replace B-52s. And now the F-35s....


US military keeps trying to replace the M16/M4.... or the 5.56.... :rolleyes:

Russia has a worse problem though. They haven't been able to get equipment replaced as best as they want to... chiefly due to budget issues. I don't know if the Sukhoi Su-57 will enter production in the numbers they want? T-14 looks interesting.. on paper it certainly could outclass a bunch of Western tanks but the problem is in funding and production.
 
I mean.. look at the F-22A. USAF wanted to replace F-15s on a 1:1 basis but Congress capped production and bam individual costs skyrocketed. Ditto for the B-2s to replace B-52s. And now the F-35s....


US military keeps trying to replace the M16/M4.... or the 5.56.... :rolleyes:

Russia has a worse problem though. They haven't been able to get equipment replaced as best as they want to... chiefly due to budget issues. I don't know if the Sukhoi Su-57 will enter production in the numbers they want? T-14 looks interesting.. on paper it certainly could outclass a bunch of Western tanks but the problem is in funding and production.
'Quantity has a quality all of its own......................'
 
Aren't China and Russia... sort of friendly antagonists? I mean.. I think I remember Russia gettiing in a row with China over the Chinese copying certain things without authorization on some aircraft things.... China would be my main worry. If Russia cod get funding from the Chinese on the T-14, and license it to the Chinese to produce....
 
Tiger II total production - 492
Panther V total production - 6,000
T-34 total production - 33, 800

T-14 seems to not follow the doctrine.
Indeed... from the Wikipedia article on the T-14...

In July 2018, Deputy Prime Minister for Defence and Space Industry Yury Borisov said there is currently no need to mass-produce the Armata when its older predecessors, namely the latest variants of the T-72, remain "effective against American, German and French counterparts", saying, "Why flood our military with Armatas, the T-72s are in great demand on the market(s)."[20][30] Instead, a modernization program of the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in-service will take precedence

:s0140: :s0140: remind me. Didn't the Israeli Merkava score the first known tank kill of a T-72, and didn't the Challenger 1 and M1A1s also wiped out the Iraqi T-72s??
 
Indeed... from the Wikipedia article on the T-14...



:s0140: :s0140: remind me. Didn't the Israeli Merkava score the first known tank kill of a T-72, and didn't the Challenger 1 and M1A1s also wiped out the Iraqi T-72s??
There's some combat footage of Apaches killing a column of T-72s
I think it was at night in a sandstorm.
The Hellfires were raining straight down on them.
I don't imagine any of those tankers escaped that carnage.

Training, hardware quality and numbers.
A lot of things at work.

The Soviets overwhelmed the superior Nazi tanks with massively superior numbers of tanks.
 
You got any data/documentation to back that up? Because I sure don't remember us(US) giving any sort of logistical support to the Brits for the Falklands campaign?
You would be wrong we did indeed share intelligence and provide logistical support to the UK , it was kept a secret for many years but has since been divulged and made public the CIA has even acknowledged as such. We provided most of the sidewinder and stinger missiles used by British Forces during the campaign . It is a very common fallacy they British are guilty of perpetuating they went it alone , by the time the Falklands Crisis occurred they were still suffering from the economic collapse they suffered in the 1960's - 1970's they could barely keep their air force in the air at the time due to a funding shortages.

 
You would be wrong we did indeed share intelligence and provide logistical support to the UK , it was kept a secret for many years but has since been divulged and made public the CIA has even acknowledged as such. We provided most of the sidewinder and stinger missiles used by British Forces during the campaign . It is a very common fallacy they British are guilty of perpetuating they went it alone , by the time the Falklands Crisis occurred they were still suffering from the economic collapse they suffered in the 1960's - 1970's they could barely keep their air force in the air at the time due to a funding shortages.

We are trying to keep this thread on track.
That side-topic has run its course.
 
I don't recall responding to that until just now . I do not need you to hall monitor my comments I can take care of it myself.

iu



We are trying to keep this thread on track.
That side-topic has run its course.
 
Tiger II total production - 492
Panther V total production - 6,000
T-34 total production - 33, 800

T-14 seems to not follow the doctrine.
This proved that superior quality and complexity don't always make things better! Germany was on the defensive by the time the Tiger went into production, and was getting hammered badly by the Soviets who focused on only two tanks, the outstanding T-38 and the incredible KV-1, which could both kill Tigers at will when fielded properly! The Panther was the same as the Tiger, with most of the same problems, and the King Tiger, ( Tiger Royal) was an even more complicated and costly, and while an outstanding design in a few respect's, mostly a sitting duck, like it's stable mates! Hitler's insistence on building super weapons was one of his biggest downfalls, had he instead focused on things like improving the Panzer IV Auf "F" and later( arguably the best tank of the war) with it's awesome 75mm gun, the tank battles would have been even more dramatic, with Soviet, and American, and British tanks suffering even greater losses. While the Tigers and Panthers were a serious threat in all areas they operated, they became a liability once the Allies figured out how to deal with them!
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top