Russian T-14 - best tank in the world? But Russia can't afford to manufacture them?

[Cavedweller]

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.

It is true that Soviet design simplicity and German engineering complexity affected tank production numbers during the war. However, a direct comparison is somewhat misleading, for the following reasons:

!) The T-34 had a much longer production run. Production began before the war, while the Panther did not enter full production until 1943 and the Tiger II in 1944.

2) German tank factories were plagued by allied bombing raids (95% of Tiger II production capacity was destroyed in the fall of 1944 by bombing raids). Since Germany lacked a strategic air force, Soviet tank production was unhindered once production facilities were moved east of the Ural mountains.

3) Germain factories suffered from a shortage of stragtegic materials during the war, while the Soviets had an abundance of natural resources.

 

[DirectDrive]

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.

It is true that Soviet design simplicity and German engineering complexity affected tank production numbers during the war. However, a direct comparison is somewhat misleading, for the following reasons:

!) The T-34 had a much longer production run. Production began before the war, while the Panther did not enter full production until 1943 and the Tiger II in 1944.

2) German tank factories were plagued by allied bombing raids (95% of Tiger II production capacity was destroyed in the fall of 1944 by bombing raids). Since Germany lacked a strategic air force, Soviet tank production was unhindered once production facilities were moved east of the Ural mountains.

3) Germain factories suffered from a shortage of stragtegic materials during the war, while the Soviets had an abundance of natural resources.

The direct comparison was quantity beat quality in that instance.
The Russians have done well with quantity and some quality sprinkled in.
T-14 doesn't seem to follow that doctrine.

 

[03A3Sporter]

It is true that Soviet design simplicity and German engineering complexity affected tank production numbers during the war. However, a direct comparison is somewhat misleading, for the following reasons:

!) The T-34 had a much longer production run. Production began before the war, while the Panther did not enter full production until 1943 and the Tiger II in 1944.

2) German tank factories were plagued by allied bombing raids (95% of Tiger II production capacity was destroyed in the fall of 1944 by bombing raids). Since Germany lacked a strategic air force, Soviet tank production was unhindered once production facilities were moved east of the Ural mountains.

3) Germain factories suffered from a shortage of stragtegic materials during the war, while the Soviets had an abundance of natural resources.

Don't forget we supplied 80% of Soviet wartime material needs and allowed their domestic production to concentrate on Artillery and Tank production. They weren't hindered with making trucks, trailers, uniforms, producing all their own food , and a whole host of raw materials they would normally have been forced to take care of themselves . Lend Lease saved the European Allies during WWII without it they would most assuredly have went under .

 

[Cavedweller]

The direct comparison was quantity beat quality in that instance.
The Russians have done well with quantity and some quality sprinkled in.
T-14 doesn't seem to follow that doctrine.

Quantity of everything seems to have been a key factor in Russian military success.

 

[Burt Gummer]

I wouldn't say Russia can't afford to build them. After all resource-wise and debt calculations put them in a far better position than most, including the US. Russia's entire debt is somewhere around 250 billion while ours is over 27 trillion. Our debt can never be repaid.

 

[GWS]

Meh
We spent so much time in the past worrying about the next Soviet super weapon, You'd think we would take everything with a grain of salt.
Take the Mig 25. Major panic when it got on the scene, A Mach 3 fighter!! But when that pilot defected with one they discovered what a paper tiger it was. Yes, it could do Mach 3, sometimes, but that burned the engines up in the process and had almost no maneuvering ability at lower speeds let alone at Mach 3.
Basically a rocket with zero dog fighting capabilities.
OK Let's talk about the Kuznetsov Everybody got scared that the Russians were going to challenge us for air superiority on the high seas, but again, paper tiger since the damn thing needs a tug boat in constant companionship with it as the machinery in the carrier is so poor. How about their Oscar Class sub Kursk? An unfortunate accident but their handling of it was a disgrace and they ended up asking for help from NATO, long after there was any chance for survival of the crew.
My point is I think the threat of this T-14 Armata is overblown, I think their ability to produce and maintain this tank, with the capabilities they claim, and the ability to build it in any serious numbers is way beyond their industrial and technological capabilities.

 

[GWS]

Quantity of everything seems to have been a key factor in Russian military success.

I'm reminded of a quote from some German general comparing Germany vs Russia to an elephant fighting ants. The elephant will crush thousands, perhaps millions of the ants, but in the end their numbers will win out.

 

[ma96782]

Changes are a coming to the British Military.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Follow up to Post #27.

Sailor Who ‘Hated’ Navy Torched $1.2B Assault Ship: Warrant

NCISA 20-year-old sailor with a grudge against the U.S. Navy and a failed attempt at becoming a Navy SEAL under his belt is accused of setting an amphibious assault ship ablaze and singlehandedly costing the Navy $30 million in damage.According to an NCIS search warrant affidavit obtained by The...

www.yahoo.com

Aloha, Mark

 

[The Heretic]

Follow up to Post #27.

Sailor Who ‘Hated’ Navy Torched $1.2B Assault Ship: Warrant

NCISA 20-year-old sailor with a grudge against the U.S. Navy and a failed attempt at becoming a Navy SEAL under his belt is accused of setting an amphibious assault ship ablaze and singlehandedly costing the Navy $30 million in damage.According to an NCIS search warrant affidavit obtained by The...

www.yahoo.com

Aloha, Mark

This is on reason why I believe that the armed forces should be more diligent about dumping enlisted that just are not good for the service. At Newport we had one guy who decided he wasn't going to do any work at all, just sit in his bunk, and came up with invented stuff as to why. They just let him sit there and did nothing to or with him (AFAIK - was above my pay grade to know the details). They should give them a general discharge. Same with people who go AWOL, especially in boot.

 

[Stomper]

'Quantity has a quality all of its own......................'

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.

The direct comparison was quantity beat quality in that instance.
The Russians have done well with quantity and some quality sprinkled in.
T-14 doesn't seem to follow that doctrine.

Quantity over quality has merits….

M4 Sherman tanks produced during WW-II: 48,071

Nicknamed "the Ronson" (the popular cigarette lighter), and the "Tommy cooker" because if hit would burn like a torch due to gasoline as it's fuel.

It definitely had its faults, but it got the job done.

 

[The Heretic]

Quantity over quality has merits….

M4 Sherman tanks produced during WW-II: 48,071

Nicknamed "the Ronson" (the popular cigarette lighter), and the "Tommy cooker" because if hit would burn like a torch due to gasoline as it's fuel.

It definitely had its faults, but it got the job done.

It depends on the opposition. This worked for the Allies on both fronts against superior tech tanks, but both the USA and the Soviets had factories and raw materials to resupply, and were willing to throw both tanks and people into the grinder.

When Iraq tried that, they had significant number of tanks and crews, but they were mostly poorly trained conscripts (the army withheld their best for fear of losing them), and our tanks were vastly superior with greater stand off distance and being able to accurately shoot on the move. Then there was the air superiority (was a big factor in WWII also).

It didn't help Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war either - they outnumbered Iran 4:1 and had superior tanks to boot, but their tactics and leadership sucked.

Ditto with Israel vs. Egypt/Jordan/Syria.

 

[DirectDrive]

Hopefully you start with air superiority and then achieve air supremacy.
By the time our tanks were rolling, we had air supremacy.
A British Air Force general explained that to General Schwarzkopf one day in a presser.
Schwarzkopf acknowledged the correction.

 

[OldBroad44]

Maybe, just maybe......

America will lose the will to fight.
Long before the Russians run out of tanks (aka: targets)?
But.....isn't that sort of the same strategy with the Chinese? Speaking about their fighting men/women.

Aloha, Mark

The Russians have lost the will to reproduce. Their fighting age population will plunge so drastically in the next five years so that any plans they have to reconquer pieces of the Soviet empire pretty much have to be executed within the next five years. I'm depending on the geopolitical analysis of Peter Zeihan from his many YouTube videos.

Chinese have also lost the will to reproduce. China has eliminated one child policy and is engaging in massive propaganda to convince families to have more than one child. But unless the children are highly educated, their lives will be such that parents are just saying no. They would rather raise one very educated child who might support them in their old age than two or more desperate helpless beggars. The Chinese government doesn't provide social security for old age or free education for youths. And back in one child era, 80% of the population were peasant farmers, and for them kids are free labor. Now most Chinese live in cities, and children are an economic liability unless they can become affluent enough to support parents in their old age.

As Zeihan points out, American Millennials managed to do something no other Millenials from developed nations did--they had kids.

Americans have always had little will to fight in foreign lands. They usually have to be tricked into supporting a war. There is a powerful military industrial complex actively wanting America to engage in as much war as possible. These two forces tend to balance. Also, while most Americans are against nearly all war, some individuals and sectors have strong military traditions. The current ascendance of those who don't consider Western civilization worth fighting for would have little impact, I suspect, on America's ability to raise adequate armies in an era of volunteer rather than drafted armies.

 

[OldBroad44]

From what I understand, most of the Soviet army and moreso now the Russian army, is poorly trained/paid conscripts.

The same has always been true of Russia and USSR. Leaders have near total contempt for the welfare of average citizens whether they are civilians or soldiers. However, about 80% of the German soldiers killed in WWII were killed by Russian troops.

 

[The Heretic]

The same has always been true of Russia and USSR. Leaders have near total contempt for the welfare of average citizens whether they are civilians or soldiers. However, about 80% of the German soldiers killed in WWII were killed by Russian troops.

That was a war of defense on their homeland. It makes a difference.

 

[OldBroad44]

That was a war of defense on their homeland. It makes a difference.

Good point. But the current borders of Russian control in Europe are large and difficult to defend. Expanding a bit by reconquering much of Eastern Europe would shorten the border and position it so that much more of it is natural barriers such as mountains. Russia could claim and probably sees retaking this land as a matter of survival. In five years they will have too few troops to defend the long indefensible border with Europe they now have.

 

[The Heretic]

Good point. But the current borders of Russian control in Europe are large and difficult to defend. Expanding a bit by reconquering much of Eastern Europe would shorten the border and position it so that much more of it is natural barriers such as mountains. Russia could claim and probably sees retaking this land as a matter of survival. In five years they will have too few troops to defend the long indefensible border with Europe they now have.

About the only country that wants Russian land is China, and they already have an agreement to farm much of it in an exchange program. The rest of Russian borders that Russia needs to defend or that they want, are to the south - hence the conflict with the Ukraine. I do not think Russia still views most of Europe as a high risk threat.

 

[Ura-Ki]

There was a LOT of hate going around with the M-4 Sherman and George Patton, the War dept. was very concerned that America didn't have enough quality tanks or would not have parity with peer enemies once the war really got going, so they asked Patton his advice, which was to build the M-4 in vast numbers rather then fielding the earlier M-3 and what M-4s they could produce while developing better tanks earlier, but taking the risks that they wouldn't be good, or at least better then the Sherman, so that's how we got so many of the M-4's! Not a bad tank, it had many strength's, but it wasn't meant to go head to head with the later Tigers and Panthers, which every one knew was going to only end one way! A lot of folks blame Patton for all the ills of the M-4, and I say it is quite unfair, it was Patton who knew better then any body what was coming, and it was the smart thing to do, he knew it would take several years to develop a better design and put it into production, and that was something he wasn't willing to risk!
The Tank we got because Patton eased the design and development process became the worlds premiere tank, the M-26 Pershing, the tank which ALL future tanks would be based on, and would put the United States at the top as the worlds foremost experts in tank design and tank warfare! Going into WW-II, we had an OK tank, ending WW-II, we had tanks better then any produced by any one through out the war!!

 

[tac]

I beg leave to disagree with your, Sir. Of all Allied tanks developed at the end of WW2, it is the British Centurion that holds the record for most-produced and most marks of production. In fact, in spite of having been designed in 1943, and put into production as the 'Black Prince' just before the end of the war in Europe, unlike the Pershing it never saw action. All that changed over the next almost fifty years in service - yup, there were variants of the Centurion taking part in Gulf War 1 as armoured engineer and recovery vehicles [AVRE]. A number of countries had them still in reserve service as recently as 2018.

However, I don't recall any variants of the Pershing with a similar history.

In service	1946–present (derivatives still in service)
Wars	Korean War Suez Crisis Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 Six-Day War Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 War of Attrition Black September Yom Kippur War Vietnam War South African Border War Operation Motorman (AVRE) 1978 South Lebanon conflict Falklands War (BARV) 1982 Lebanon War Operation Desert Storm (AVRE) 2006 Lebanon War Syrian Civil War

The eventual main armament, that lasted until the very end of Centurion as a gun tank, was the British-designed 105mm gun, adopted by the US Army as the main armament for the M60, M60A1 and even the Abrams in its early versions. The same gun was the mainstay of ALL NATO and Commonwealth tanks until the development of the 120mm smooth-bore gun by Rheinmetall. Even the odd Swedish StrV103 had as self-loading version and the field artillery version, the 105mm light gun, was in service with the US Army and Marine Corps until recently

Every now and then the Brits get something right, even though other folks might not like to have to admit it.