What an awesome beast. And it was pure American made too. Too bad they didn't adopt it in large numbers. They let the soviets take the lead in armored forces during the Cold War.
There's a reason we didn't build too many, and it was actually because of lessons learned by the soviets.
Around the 1960's, the development of Anti-tank guided missiles became widespread. Even soviet heavies were vulnerable to a man-portable ATGM. Simply put, the heavy tank had it's day. The soviets can have that lead, for what good is a lead when it's ultimately a dead end? lol.
Still, it would have been cool to see them used in massive numbers xD
@peepeevagi Well, if heavy tanks were so vulnerable, although there were plans 2 equip the M103 with a more powerful engine & a better suspension system, than they should've found another platform 2 put that 120 mm gun on. That gun would've been a powerful weapon against any soviet tank. Don't forget that their tanks always had more powerful guns. & this advantage theirs in armor would've been felt by the US in case a war would've erupted in Europe, believe me. If the soviets would've decided
Well, that decrepit 120mm gun was giant, clunky, heavy, and required a massive turret that could fit two loaders. And you've missed the point, heavies (Once invulnerable to anything but another heavy) Could be taken out by a single man with a missile. A slow moving, heavily armored gun tank essentially became nothing but a big, moving target. Hence why we moved on to faster, lighter tanks with heavy tank guns! Speed became better than the heaviest set of armor :D
@peepeevagi Like I said, plans 2 make the M103 faster & more mobile were on the way. & tell me, what portable missile system did the US posses that could destroy the Russian tanks?
The Russian were always better in tanks & that, in the eventuality of a war in Europe, would cost the US greatly. I don't understand how, throughout he Cold War, America was not able to equip its tanks with guns more powerful than 105 mm. The Patton tanks would've had no chance against their contemporary soviet tanks.
@peepeevagi to invade Western Europe with conventional weapons, the US would've LOST that war. Resorting 2 nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would've resulted in a total nuclear war & the blame would've been on the US. So that wouldn't have been an option. The US never prepared itself 4 a conventional war with the the soviets & that was a mistake. Letting the soviets lead in armor power as well as in the ICBM forces, was a HUGE mistake.
And Russia invading western europe would have been suicidal if nukes were brought into play. And considering the ideals of the time, using nukes (If we did) would have been justifiable. The Common enemy then was the "Red menace" after all.
As far as a conventional World war III is concerned, it's unlikely that russia would have brought out heavy tanks, making it quite the even fight. And later on we prepared for a theoretical World war III. The Apache was practically designed with it in mind.
@peepeevagi Using nuclear weapons against a conventional invasion would've meant that the US would've been responsible 4 the destruction of the entire world. How can u say that the use of nuclear weapons would've been justifiable? Keep in mind that u were always much more afraid of a nuclear war than the Russians
Russia didn't have heavy tanks during the Cold War. But their tanks were always better armed & better protected compared 2 their American counterparts. So if the Russians would've
It'd have been justifiable. Like Bombing japan was justified, it'd have been done for a greater cause against a common enemy. The destruction of the entire world is a bit extreme in this case. We're talking a conventional war, not a nuclear apocalypse. Hence 'tactical' nuking :P. And they were just as afraid of a full scale nuclear war as we were, both sides could easily wipe out the other in case of a nuclear apocalypse.
@peepeevagi It doesn't matter if it's just tactical nukes. The use of nuclear weapons, strategic or tactical, would've lead to an all out nuclear war that would've destroyed the world. The Russians would've used tactical nukes in the own turn & after that step 2 using strategic nukes would've been very small. The US should've been prepared 2 win a conventional war with conventional weapons only, not just a nuclear 1. Funny thing is that even in the nuclear arena, the Russians still dominated.
@peepeevagi really decided 2 invade Western Europe, the US & NATO would've lost that war. Don't forget that besides having more powerful armored forces,. the Russians also had anti-armor weapons, like helicopters & man portable systems that were always better than their American counterparts. The Russians had the upper hand, no matter how you put it.
You cant just assume we'd lose this hypothetical war. The fight would have actually been very even, if not in our favor. Russia has sheer numbers, but we had the better tanks AND aircraft. Russia would have had quite the fight on their hand. Our man portable systems were about even in capability, though we had an edge in the surface to air missiles and all around accuracy. They could miss. We wouldn't.
@peepeevagi U're joking, right? U had better tanks? Throughout the entire Cold War, the Russians were superior in conventional weapons, in specially in armored forces & anti-tank weapons. Ur anti-tank systems never matched the soviet/Russian ones. The Russians were superior in armor, as well as anti-armor. U may have had a slight advantage with the air-force, but in anti-aircraft, the Russians always were and still are superior.
Slight advantage? The air force would have been a major, if not DECISIVE advantage! And for every superiority they had, we developed something even superior. As far as early armor goes, the M60 series could definitely put up a fight with russian T54/55s. And for later armor like the T64's and T-72's we had Upgraded M60s, not to mention the british Centurion and excellent Challenger 1.
Our antitank systems, if not just as good, were adequate enough to put up a fight.
@peepeevagi The advantage that ur air force would've offered would've been limited. U forget u would've been pitted against a military SUPER POWER. The M60 tanks were inferior 2 the T-62, T-64 & T-72, the M-160's soviet contemporaries. Challenger & Centurion were built in too smaller numbers & they didn't compare with the soviet armor anyway. Those "upgraded" M60s still had MUCH weaker firepower compared 2 the T-62 & in specially the T-64 & T-72. The soviets also had more powerful anti-tank
@peepeevagi missiles. Their air force & their network of SAMs + the anti-aircraft systems that were meant 2 defend the troops from aerial attacks would've made ur air force's life very difficult. No matter what u say, u can't dodge the necessity of having more powerful armor & anti-armor hardware in armored warfare.
And assuming this all happened late enough for helicopters to be in full force, the Apache would have been a war winner. Designed, almost specifically, to roam eastern europe and take out russian tanks (With a massive 12 guided missiles the hind's measly 4) apaches would have taken out the majority of armored forces before tanks would even get in fighting range! Hinds may have rocket pods but those rockets aren't designed to take out tanks.
@peepeevagi The Apaches can be very well shot down with man portable anti-aircraft systems, like the Igla or Strela. Attack helicopters r just 1 of the many elements needed 2 fight an armored warfare. Saying that using just one element 2 win an armored warfare is a t least ignorant. What u u need 2 have in order 2 win an armored warfare is BETTER ARMOR, BETTER ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS AND TACTICS. And America was always inferior 2 the USSR in these areas.
You cant simply discount the damage Apaches could do though, and they are used in conjunction with ground forces, not just stand alone to hold off an entire invasion. And Apaches are armored enough to take hits and still fly. Besides, with proper tactics they'd be forced into cover and unable to even get a shot off at an incoming helicopter. And MANPADS can miss, not every shot would be a guarenteed kill (I think it was one in every three shots that guarenteed a kill).
@peepeevagi U forget that the soviets had at least equal capabilities. The Mi-24 could inflict heavy damage 2 the Patton tanks, which were more poorly armored than the soviet tanks. The soviet anti-tank systems (including the tanks) & their anti-aircraft systems operating at the division & sub division level would've made ur Apaches attacks very hard 2 achieve. Remember that 4 every of ur offensive capabilities there was a soviet counterpart that was at least as powerful.
@azbadgahad The soviet made stuff the Iraqis had in the first gulf war were old and obsolete. You didn't face the latest soviet stuff in that war. Only second hand T-72s, T-55s and T-62s. The soviets always had an advantage on US during the Cold War and they have that advantage now as well. Even from the WW2, the soviets had better armored forces than the US.
@ViciousCritique Actually, the Russians always produced better armor than the US. From their WW2 era armor up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian armor was superior to the American armor. The Abrams is superior to the Russians tanks from some points of view, but the Russians had projects that would've been better than the Abrams. The only reason they didn't built them was because the Soviet Union fell apart. But the Black Eagle and the T-95 would've been superior to Abrams.
@StiviGun1 bull shit, they never had the advantage, we are better trained better armed and have way more money then the russians, they wouldnt be able to beat us without china
@renster143 "better trained, better armed"? That's bullshit. Even now, the Russians have the edge in armored forces. Just take a look at all the Russian tanks since WW2 and their American counterparts. The T54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, these were all superior to their American counterparts. The Russians also built more powerful APCs, IFVs, better multiple rocket launchers. At the end of the Cold War, the Russians were superior in artillery systems and tanks.
1940-1942 was the only time when Soviet armor was the best in the world. Soviet tanks seem great on paper but they arent designed for human crews. Theres a Polish saing (Poland used Soviet tanks in the cold war but now uses Leo 2) "Fucked up like in a Russian tank".
@Paciat The human crews always managed very well inside the Russian tanks. The T-34 is considered the best tank in WW2. The T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, these tanks were all superior to their American counterparts. As for what the "Polish say" and the western propaganda, that's bullshit. This propaganda that talks about the "inferior Russian weapons" doesn't help anybody. It's not true. The Russians are not and never were inferior in weapons technology.
@StiviGun1 Poland was in the Warsaw pact (like Romania was too). There was no "western propaganda" there was "eastern propaganda" that couldnt hide that it was fucked up inside T-72. Watch this wideo of "superior" T-72 blowing itself up without a reason and youll see what I mean. watch?v=K6Ra8JcY7k8
@Paciat That video is not a proof of anything. That must have been a poorly maintained unit. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was no money to maintain the hardware. The US tanks would blow up too if they weren't maintained. But the Russian tanks were always superior to the American tanks. Better protection, better firepower, better mobility. Even now, the Russian tanks have more firepower and better mobility than the Abrams.
@StiviGun1 Better protection? If a tank Soviet tanks weight is +20tons lower it isnt better protected. The Soviet autoloader is crap. It cuts of tank crew hands, it loads unprotected ammo so there were many accidents when T-72 just exploded (one of them was even filmed!). Sure, a badly maintained Abrams would brake down but T-72 just blows up without a reason.
When tank crews say their own tanks are so "fucked up" that its dangerous to use them - thats all the proof I need to say theyre crap.
@Paciat Better protection, yeah. Check out the specs on the Russian tanks from the T-55 onwards and you'll see. As for all the propaganda that you just displayed here, now THAT'S bullshit. You saw one poorly maintained old T-72 catching some smoke and you say that all Russian equipment is crap. I can also show you a lot of footage with fucked up Abrams tanks and say that all the American hardware is crap. There are numerous photos with destroyed Abrams in Iraq.
@StiviGun1 Abrams were destroyed by roadbombs and its easy to destroy anything with a bomb. Theres only a question how big the bomb should be. You cant show me a footage of any US tank that blows itself up, becouse there isnt any. That T-72 didnt "couth smoke", its aoutoloader failed and if that ammo was wasnt blank 2 or 3 people would die! Russian T-72 blows up without a reason, without a single enemy shooting back at them. Thats not propaganda, you saw the video, its true.
@Paciat Just one footage with ONE T-72 catching smoke is not a proof of anything. That incident probably didn't even have anything to do with the tank, it was probably the ammo's fault. But from firepower, mobility and protection point of view, the Russian tanks were always superior. From the T-55 onwards the Russian tanks were always better than the American Patton series of tanks. The Abrams is now better protected, but it falls behind in firepower and mobility. And even at protection chapter
@Paciat the Russian tanks, with the latest generation of ERA are just as protected as the Abrams. And they are also much lighter, which gives them much better mobility.
@StiviGun1 Protected? When they blow up by themselves, cut off crew hands etc. is there even a point of talking about protection? Those T-72 crews are best protected when they are outside the tank. Thats why Its fucked up in a Russian tank. No mather what hapenes its best to stay away from it.
@Paciat This is just bullshit propaganda. They don't blow up "by themselves" and the incidents in which the autoloader cut off the hands of its operators were very rare and were the operator's fault. You can use the same argument on the PzH 2000. The PzH 2000's autoloader can very easily cut of someone's hand if the operator is not very careful. But the Russian tanks' protection compared to the Patton tanks is much better. Check the specifications. The firepower is also far superior.
@StiviGun1 You saw the video, T-72 did blow up by itself and someone actually even couth that on tape. Thats not propaganda, thats truth. Your "bullshit propaganda" or some specifications writen on paper wont change it. T-72 is dangerous to its crews. And noone knows that better than the crews themselves. Noone.
Look at this video, how close the autoloader is and how easy it is to make a mistake when the tank jumps up and down over rough terrain. watch?v=j-jIsjQTTIA&feature=channel_video_title
@Paciat First of all, it didn't blow up, it only caught some smoke. As for the autoloader, who the hell would load it when the tank is on the move? The autoloader is loaded when the tank is staying still.
@StiviGun1 It moves fast on rough terrain (unlike that German howitzer you mentioned earier). If a driver turns quickly and youre not holding on you can easielly get thrown on that autoloader. And when youre driving for hours in a noisy tank youll get tired quickly.
@Paciat That's bullshit. Nobody was ever thrown in that autoloader. And if you talk about noise, well then your tanks are just as noisy. Don't tell me that the Abrams is quiet inside. The Russian tanks are lighter, more mobile and have better mobility. And if a war erupted before the Abrams was built between NATO and Warsaw Pact, the Warsaw pact would've definitely had the advantage in armor and artillery. The Patton tanks were no match for their Russian counterparts.
@StiviGun1 You know about the accidents with hands cut off by the autoloader but you say "Nobody was ever thrown in that autoloader". It is you thats bullshiting me. And you say that you know more about the safety of than their own crews. Most Warsaw pact tanks werent even used in battle and they have casualties among their own crews. Ask the man without a hand: Did thicker armor and superion mobility help you or your country in any way? He will say No.
@Paciat Superior armor and mobility will help you in real combat. The M-60 Patton would've never had a chance against the T-72 or T-64. And just quit with that stupid hands cut off argument. This probably happend several times and it was excessively propagated by the western media. You act like this happens on a regular bases, which is BULLSHIT. And please tell me with specific data how many times did the autoloader cut off the operator's hands or how many times the tank was a "danger for its
@Paciat own crew"? This is just pathetic propaganda. "Ask the man without a hand"? Do you know any specific man who had his hand cut off? Do you have any data that this happens on a regular bases? No, all you have is a shitty video with an isolated incident and try to make it look like it's something that happens on a regular bases. And this is BULLSHIT coming from you.
And show me just ONE incident in which somebody was "thrown" in that autoloader. This is the biggest bullshit so far.
@StiviGun1 You thinkthat there are cameras inside all T-72? How should I "show you"?
MAN GOT HIS HAND CUT OF BY THE AUTOLOADER BECOUSE AUTOLODER WAS DESIGNED BADLY. Understand? TANK FIRES A BLANK SHELL THAT EXPLODES INSIDE. EVERYTHING FILMED! Things like that hapened with live ammo, only noone was there to filmed them becouse those were military exercises. Ammo wasnt secured like it is in lets say Abrams.(Ammo hatches blow out and the magazine is separate from the crew)
@Paciat "You thinkthat there are cameras inside all T-72? How should I "show you"?" So you saw just ONE short video with an isolated incident with a very old model and you assume this happens all the time. Is this your shitty argument?
As for the autoloader, the only reason why there were SOME incidents in which some got their hands cut off was because they didn't handle the autoloader properly, not because it was designed badly. That's just your bullshit.
@Paciat "Things like that hapened with live ammo" How the hell do you exactly know this? All you have is a shitty video, that's it. Also, I already told you that the incident you see in that video is not caused by the autoloader or the tank. It's stupid to believe this. It probably had something to do with the shell, not the autoloader. This can happen to any tank if the shell is flawed.
@dinkumuk And what are your ARGUMENTS? Tell me, how exactly could the US have won a war against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact during the '70s? What would the US have done in case the communists would've invaded the Western Europe? The communists were better armed from all points of view, in specially in the land warfare arena. They had superior armor, superior artillery and a lot of anti-air power to back these up. They were much better armed than you were.
@randomusernamemygod That's not the same. The T-55s the Israelis fought were downgraded export models and they were operated by inexperienced crews. The soviet's armor was much better and the soviet's armor fighting tactics were far superior to those of the Arabs. If a war had started during the '70s, NATO and US would've been completely outnumbered from both conventional and nuclear points of view.
@StiviGun1 There were no Export models of the T55. These were standard T55's given to the Egyptians by the Soviets after the pact they made, which the Soviets completely reorganised and trained the "inexperienced" Egyptians in Soviet equipment and Soviet tactics by the 20,000 Soviet advisors in the country before outbreak of war.
Both Egypt and Syria were equipped with T62.obr1960. Standard Soviet T 62 model used by the USSR and Warsaw pact.
@randomusernamemygod OK, so what kind of tanks did the Israeli used, other than the M51? I know that the Israelis kicked the crap out of the Arabs in those wars, but what kind of equipment did they use? If you ask me, I think it was a MIRACLE that they managed to win against the more powerful armored forces that the Arabs were equipped with. I don't know how they did it. The M51 and the Patton tanks they used were weaker from every point of view than the soviet armor.
@randomusernamemygod er not quite old son,the Russian make TWO versions of the same tank(and indeed all weapons) the one THEY use and the "MONKEY MODEL" this one has poorer sights,a less powerful engine and gearbox and thiner armour(the main gun is also degraded a bit)
the reason for this is two fold
1 this is the tank they would be making AFTER an all out war and
2 they sell the monkey model to other countries to make money
@grahamkeithtodd There are no downgraded variants of the T-55 and 62's nor were there export versions. They produced such variants only with the the T-72.
@grahamkeithtodd Oh for god sake, there is no Export versions of the T55 and T62. The manufacturers never made such a version. The only Soviet produced tank to be made into an export model is the T72 and T90. Give me a product model designation of any export T55 + 62. The standard versions were already quick and cheap to produce thats why the Russians used 2 MBT's. Quality T64/80 and the Quantity T72.
@randomusernamemygod Iraq used a different form of T54/62 and that was the Chinese Type 59/69, which they used in large numbers. The Type 59/69's were copies of the T54/62 and they were improved over the Soviet version with stabilised guns and extra frontal + Turret armour. Again no export models for those tanks also during that time except for the 90's+ with the Type 59P, which is an Advanced Variant that uses third Gen tank components.
@StiviGun1 The americans planned to use the territory of the former GDR to drop tactical nuclear bombs on russian tank divisions and so on. Russia attacks and moves into GDR and the americans would´ve dropped the nuclear holocaust over GDR just to stop the russians. They would´nt have had a chance otherwise. The sheer numbers of the russian army at that time speak for itself. No chance for ANY other country to fuck em up in the 70´s. Napoleon learned it, Hitler too, but some people are just dumb
@oberchobo Well, that's my point. The Americans wouldn't have stood a chance in front of a soviet invasion without using nuclear weapons. They were inferior in conventional weaponry. But there would've been a problem: the Russians also had tactical nukes aimed at Europe. And their tactical missiles were even better than the American ones. Si if the American had used nukes, even tactical ones, the Russians would've done that too and from that point it would've been just a very small step to
@oberchobo the use of the strategic missiles thus a full nuclear war which would've lead to the destruction of the world. That's why the Americans simply couldn't have used any kind of nukes. Because the use of any type of nukes would've inevitably led to a full nuclear war. So if the soviets did decide to invade Western Europe, there was nothing that America could've done. The soviets were simply better armed from all points of view. This was also in part to stupid, sissy politicians that cut
And now that i think about it, we DEFINITELY would have had the upper hand. The A-10 warthog, something the russians had no equal to. Russian tanks are rather delicate on top, unlike allied tanks, so a barrage of 30mm gatling fire is just as good as a missile. And, dont forget, the A-10 is designed to take multiple hits.
@peepeevagi The A-10 is also pretty easy 2 shot down with low altitude anti-aircraft & portable anti-aircraft systems, like the Tunguska M, Tor M1 or the portable systems that the Russians were very skilled at. Just 1 or 2 elements, like the Apache & the A-10, can't win an armored warfare against a foe that is superior in armored hardware and tactics.
An A-10 can take loads of damage before going down, and they can outmanuver incoming fire from a Tungska M, and have countermeasures against their missiles. Not to mention we have anti-radiation missiles that home in on the enemy's radar, effectively taking out SPAAGs before planes are even within their range. And Helicopters would be behind tanks, shooting ahead of them, not foolishly out in front.
@peepeevagi The A-10 can't take the 30mm fire from the Tunguska M or its missiles or Tor M1's missiles. That's a crazy statement. U had/have anti-radiation missiles. That wouldn't helped too much. Also, the soviets had this type of missiles as well.
As 4 helicopters, how easy do u think it would be 2 get behind enemy tanks, that r heavily protected by anti-aircraft fire both in the form of missiles and high rate of fire cannons? The chances 4 the Apaches 2 do that would've been very slim.
Heck, we'd definitely have the upper hand with our air arm. Better everything, from interceptors to bombers. We'd have been able to achieve air superiority and been able to bring out our fearsome AC-130's (Came out during the late 1960s) to truly wreak havoc.
And, who knows, depending on whether or not it became a naval battle we could have had naval gunfire support the whole time (16inch gunfire support :D). We could defeat their anti-ship missiles, but they couldn't defeat ours.
@peepeevagi Again, the AC-130, is just a big target 4 relatively cheap anti-aircraft weapons.
As 4 a naval battle, don;t be so sure that u would've had the upper hand. The Russians had more subs that could dive 2 deeper depths & they always had much more powerful anti-ship missiles. The Kashtan M & the S-300 naval variants r more than capable of dealing with the USN's Harpoon and anti-ship Tomahawk which r subsonic, thus relatively easy 2 intercept & shoot down.
AC-130's are only used in conditions of air superiority, at altitudes where short range missiles and ground based gunfire cant reach. You take out whatever medium and long range SAM sites there are from out of range with the appropriate ordinance and then call it in.
The difference between the allied and soviet navies is in sheer numbers, we could outnumber their ships three to one and fire barrages of missiles (Or gunfire) at them, overwhelming whatever they are capable of dealing with.
@peepeevagi How do u think the AC-130 is used? Let's look at its weapons. The most powerful 1 is is 105mm howitzer, which is not designed 2 launch high altitude attacks. The AC-130 has no weapon that it can use from high altitude attacks.
As 4 the soviet navy vs US navy, the soviets had more subs & much more powerful anti-ship missiles. Ur navy would've suffered EXTREMELY heavy losses. It would've won a war with the soviet navy, but at a MUCH higher cost that it should've.
As far as sumbarines go, we outnumbered russian subs almost three to one. Just the LA and Sturgeon class combined number over 100 (The most numerous types during the cold war), to the russians 35-40 combined total built. And they were just as capable, if not better, than their soviet counterparts. Not to mention at the very end we built the largest and most advanced hunter-killer of all time, the seawolf class.
@peepeevagi Where do you get these numbers from? Can I see your sources?
The soviet subs were able 2 sink at higher depths (being much harder 2 detect & hit) & they were faster. They also had dedicated cruise missile subs that could launch anti-carrier cruise missiles.
As 4 the Seawolf, the Akula class is just as advanced & they r built in larger numbers.
But please, here, we talk abt armored warfare, so let's not diverge, OK? :)
@peepeevagi Here is something else, apart from what we've been talking so far. Look how high the M103's suspension system made the tanks to be. With the Walter Christie's suspension systems, height would've never been a problem. With the Christie's suspension system, u could've mounted a large turret on the tank & still keep a very low profile. Furthermore, the tank would've been more mobile too. Just another arguments i favor of the Walther Christie tanks design & suspension systems.
red china got js-2 stalin in 1950...not sent into korean war...soviet js-4 (200 tanks) guarded across the yalu river 1950!...korea was headed for ww-3!
this tank is a counter to js-2...js-3..js-4...and t-10 lenin...had korean war dragged on...or if we crossed the yalu into red china etc...a golden oldie!
Coming to World of Tanks this month. Can't wait to try it out.
soundslave 1 week ago
god it shows its M60 similarity.
redreaper2020 5 months ago
Well firstly how many hours in MBT's do you have?
How many rounds of main armamant have you fired?
and lastly I thought that it was NATO sorry shall I put it in again NATO fighting the cold war........
dinkumuk 8 months ago
So then, we have not faced "good" Soviet made weaponry? What about the Israelis?
azbadgahad 9 months ago
@patrikasLTL The later versions of the M103 had better engines. More powerful. So it ws not exactly the same as on the M60.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
What an awesome beast. And it was pure American made too. Too bad they didn't adopt it in large numbers. They let the soviets take the lead in armored forces during the Cold War.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
There's a reason we didn't build too many, and it was actually because of lessons learned by the soviets.
Around the 1960's, the development of Anti-tank guided missiles became widespread. Even soviet heavies were vulnerable to a man-portable ATGM. Simply put, the heavy tank had it's day. The soviets can have that lead, for what good is a lead when it's ultimately a dead end? lol.
Still, it would have been cool to see them used in massive numbers xD
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Well, if heavy tanks were so vulnerable, although there were plans 2 equip the M103 with a more powerful engine & a better suspension system, than they should've found another platform 2 put that 120 mm gun on. That gun would've been a powerful weapon against any soviet tank. Don't forget that their tanks always had more powerful guns. & this advantage theirs in armor would've been felt by the US in case a war would've erupted in Europe, believe me. If the soviets would've decided
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Well, that decrepit 120mm gun was giant, clunky, heavy, and required a massive turret that could fit two loaders. And you've missed the point, heavies (Once invulnerable to anything but another heavy) Could be taken out by a single man with a missile. A slow moving, heavily armored gun tank essentially became nothing but a big, moving target. Hence why we moved on to faster, lighter tanks with heavy tank guns! Speed became better than the heaviest set of armor :D
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Like I said, plans 2 make the M103 faster & more mobile were on the way. & tell me, what portable missile system did the US posses that could destroy the Russian tanks?
The Russian were always better in tanks & that, in the eventuality of a war in Europe, would cost the US greatly. I don't understand how, throughout he Cold War, America was not able to equip its tanks with guns more powerful than 105 mm. The Patton tanks would've had no chance against their contemporary soviet tanks.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@peepeevagi to invade Western Europe with conventional weapons, the US would've LOST that war. Resorting 2 nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would've resulted in a total nuclear war & the blame would've been on the US. So that wouldn't have been an option. The US never prepared itself 4 a conventional war with the the soviets & that was a mistake. Letting the soviets lead in armor power as well as in the ICBM forces, was a HUGE mistake.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
And Russia invading western europe would have been suicidal if nukes were brought into play. And considering the ideals of the time, using nukes (If we did) would have been justifiable. The Common enemy then was the "Red menace" after all.
As far as a conventional World war III is concerned, it's unlikely that russia would have brought out heavy tanks, making it quite the even fight. And later on we prepared for a theoretical World war III. The Apache was practically designed with it in mind.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Using nuclear weapons against a conventional invasion would've meant that the US would've been responsible 4 the destruction of the entire world. How can u say that the use of nuclear weapons would've been justifiable? Keep in mind that u were always much more afraid of a nuclear war than the Russians
Russia didn't have heavy tanks during the Cold War. But their tanks were always better armed & better protected compared 2 their American counterparts. So if the Russians would've
StiviGun1 1 year ago
It'd have been justifiable. Like Bombing japan was justified, it'd have been done for a greater cause against a common enemy. The destruction of the entire world is a bit extreme in this case. We're talking a conventional war, not a nuclear apocalypse. Hence 'tactical' nuking :P. And they were just as afraid of a full scale nuclear war as we were, both sides could easily wipe out the other in case of a nuclear apocalypse.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi It doesn't matter if it's just tactical nukes. The use of nuclear weapons, strategic or tactical, would've lead to an all out nuclear war that would've destroyed the world. The Russians would've used tactical nukes in the own turn & after that step 2 using strategic nukes would've been very small. The US should've been prepared 2 win a conventional war with conventional weapons only, not just a nuclear 1. Funny thing is that even in the nuclear arena, the Russians still dominated.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@peepeevagi really decided 2 invade Western Europe, the US & NATO would've lost that war. Don't forget that besides having more powerful armored forces,. the Russians also had anti-armor weapons, like helicopters & man portable systems that were always better than their American counterparts. The Russians had the upper hand, no matter how you put it.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
You cant just assume we'd lose this hypothetical war. The fight would have actually been very even, if not in our favor. Russia has sheer numbers, but we had the better tanks AND aircraft. Russia would have had quite the fight on their hand. Our man portable systems were about even in capability, though we had an edge in the surface to air missiles and all around accuracy. They could miss. We wouldn't.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi U're joking, right? U had better tanks? Throughout the entire Cold War, the Russians were superior in conventional weapons, in specially in armored forces & anti-tank weapons. Ur anti-tank systems never matched the soviet/Russian ones. The Russians were superior in armor, as well as anti-armor. U may have had a slight advantage with the air-force, but in anti-aircraft, the Russians always were and still are superior.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Slight advantage? The air force would have been a major, if not DECISIVE advantage! And for every superiority they had, we developed something even superior. As far as early armor goes, the M60 series could definitely put up a fight with russian T54/55s. And for later armor like the T64's and T-72's we had Upgraded M60s, not to mention the british Centurion and excellent Challenger 1.
Our antitank systems, if not just as good, were adequate enough to put up a fight.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi The advantage that ur air force would've offered would've been limited. U forget u would've been pitted against a military SUPER POWER. The M60 tanks were inferior 2 the T-62, T-64 & T-72, the M-160's soviet contemporaries. Challenger & Centurion were built in too smaller numbers & they didn't compare with the soviet armor anyway. Those "upgraded" M60s still had MUCH weaker firepower compared 2 the T-62 & in specially the T-64 & T-72. The soviets also had more powerful anti-tank
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@peepeevagi missiles. Their air force & their network of SAMs + the anti-aircraft systems that were meant 2 defend the troops from aerial attacks would've made ur air force's life very difficult. No matter what u say, u can't dodge the necessity of having more powerful armor & anti-armor hardware in armored warfare.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
And assuming this all happened late enough for helicopters to be in full force, the Apache would have been a war winner. Designed, almost specifically, to roam eastern europe and take out russian tanks (With a massive 12 guided missiles the hind's measly 4) apaches would have taken out the majority of armored forces before tanks would even get in fighting range! Hinds may have rocket pods but those rockets aren't designed to take out tanks.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi The Apaches can be very well shot down with man portable anti-aircraft systems, like the Igla or Strela. Attack helicopters r just 1 of the many elements needed 2 fight an armored warfare. Saying that using just one element 2 win an armored warfare is a t least ignorant. What u u need 2 have in order 2 win an armored warfare is BETTER ARMOR, BETTER ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS AND TACTICS. And America was always inferior 2 the USSR in these areas.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
You cant simply discount the damage Apaches could do though, and they are used in conjunction with ground forces, not just stand alone to hold off an entire invasion. And Apaches are armored enough to take hits and still fly. Besides, with proper tactics they'd be forced into cover and unable to even get a shot off at an incoming helicopter. And MANPADS can miss, not every shot would be a guarenteed kill (I think it was one in every three shots that guarenteed a kill).
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi U forget that the soviets had at least equal capabilities. The Mi-24 could inflict heavy damage 2 the Patton tanks, which were more poorly armored than the soviet tanks. The soviet anti-tank systems (including the tanks) & their anti-aircraft systems operating at the division & sub division level would've made ur Apaches attacks very hard 2 achieve. Remember that 4 every of ur offensive capabilities there was a soviet counterpart that was at least as powerful.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 yeah all that Soviet made stuff really gave us a run for our money in the first Gulf War, didn't it
azbadgahad 9 months ago
@azbadgahad The soviet made stuff the Iraqis had in the first gulf war were old and obsolete. You didn't face the latest soviet stuff in that war. Only second hand T-72s, T-55s and T-62s. The soviets always had an advantage on US during the Cold War and they have that advantage now as well. Even from the WW2, the soviets had better armored forces than the US.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@CommieStivi1 U are full of shit .....russians always produced junk armor.
ViciousCritique 9 months ago
@ViciousCritique Actually, the Russians always produced better armor than the US. From their WW2 era armor up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian armor was superior to the American armor. The Abrams is superior to the Russians tanks from some points of view, but the Russians had projects that would've been better than the Abrams. The only reason they didn't built them was because the Soviet Union fell apart. But the Black Eagle and the T-95 would've been superior to Abrams.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 bull shit, they never had the advantage, we are better trained better armed and have way more money then the russians, they wouldnt be able to beat us without china
renster143 9 months ago
@renster143 "better trained, better armed"? That's bullshit. Even now, the Russians have the edge in armored forces. Just take a look at all the Russian tanks since WW2 and their American counterparts. The T54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, these were all superior to their American counterparts. The Russians also built more powerful APCs, IFVs, better multiple rocket launchers. At the end of the Cold War, the Russians were superior in artillery systems and tanks.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 What do you mean "Even from the WW2"?
1940-1942 was the only time when Soviet armor was the best in the world. Soviet tanks seem great on paper but they arent designed for human crews. Theres a Polish saing (Poland used Soviet tanks in the cold war but now uses Leo 2) "Fucked up like in a Russian tank".
Paciat 9 months ago
@Paciat The human crews always managed very well inside the Russian tanks. The T-34 is considered the best tank in WW2. The T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, these tanks were all superior to their American counterparts. As for what the "Polish say" and the western propaganda, that's bullshit. This propaganda that talks about the "inferior Russian weapons" doesn't help anybody. It's not true. The Russians are not and never were inferior in weapons technology.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Poland was in the Warsaw pact (like Romania was too). There was no "western propaganda" there was "eastern propaganda" that couldnt hide that it was fucked up inside T-72. Watch this wideo of "superior" T-72 blowing itself up without a reason and youll see what I mean. watch?v=K6Ra8JcY7k8
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat That video is not a proof of anything. That must have been a poorly maintained unit. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was no money to maintain the hardware. The US tanks would blow up too if they weren't maintained. But the Russian tanks were always superior to the American tanks. Better protection, better firepower, better mobility. Even now, the Russian tanks have more firepower and better mobility than the Abrams.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Better protection? If a tank Soviet tanks weight is +20tons lower it isnt better protected. The Soviet autoloader is crap. It cuts of tank crew hands, it loads unprotected ammo so there were many accidents when T-72 just exploded (one of them was even filmed!). Sure, a badly maintained Abrams would brake down but T-72 just blows up without a reason.
When tank crews say their own tanks are so "fucked up" that its dangerous to use them - thats all the proof I need to say theyre crap.
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat Better protection, yeah. Check out the specs on the Russian tanks from the T-55 onwards and you'll see. As for all the propaganda that you just displayed here, now THAT'S bullshit. You saw one poorly maintained old T-72 catching some smoke and you say that all Russian equipment is crap. I can also show you a lot of footage with fucked up Abrams tanks and say that all the American hardware is crap. There are numerous photos with destroyed Abrams in Iraq.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Abrams were destroyed by roadbombs and its easy to destroy anything with a bomb. Theres only a question how big the bomb should be. You cant show me a footage of any US tank that blows itself up, becouse there isnt any. That T-72 didnt "couth smoke", its aoutoloader failed and if that ammo was wasnt blank 2 or 3 people would die! Russian T-72 blows up without a reason, without a single enemy shooting back at them. Thats not propaganda, you saw the video, its true.
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat Just one footage with ONE T-72 catching smoke is not a proof of anything. That incident probably didn't even have anything to do with the tank, it was probably the ammo's fault. But from firepower, mobility and protection point of view, the Russian tanks were always superior. From the T-55 onwards the Russian tanks were always better than the American Patton series of tanks. The Abrams is now better protected, but it falls behind in firepower and mobility. And even at protection chapter
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@Paciat the Russian tanks, with the latest generation of ERA are just as protected as the Abrams. And they are also much lighter, which gives them much better mobility.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Protected? When they blow up by themselves, cut off crew hands etc. is there even a point of talking about protection? Those T-72 crews are best protected when they are outside the tank. Thats why Its fucked up in a Russian tank. No mather what hapenes its best to stay away from it.
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat This is just bullshit propaganda. They don't blow up "by themselves" and the incidents in which the autoloader cut off the hands of its operators were very rare and were the operator's fault. You can use the same argument on the PzH 2000. The PzH 2000's autoloader can very easily cut of someone's hand if the operator is not very careful. But the Russian tanks' protection compared to the Patton tanks is much better. Check the specifications. The firepower is also far superior.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You saw the video, T-72 did blow up by itself and someone actually even couth that on tape. Thats not propaganda, thats truth. Your "bullshit propaganda" or some specifications writen on paper wont change it. T-72 is dangerous to its crews. And noone knows that better than the crews themselves. Noone.
Look at this video, how close the autoloader is and how easy it is to make a mistake when the tank jumps up and down over rough terrain. watch?v=j-jIsjQTTIA&feature=channel_video_title
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat First of all, it didn't blow up, it only caught some smoke. As for the autoloader, who the hell would load it when the tank is on the move? The autoloader is loaded when the tank is staying still.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@Paciat Sp what's wrong with the inside of a Russian tank. What exactly did you want to show me with that video?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 It moves fast on rough terrain (unlike that German howitzer you mentioned earier). If a driver turns quickly and youre not holding on you can easielly get thrown on that autoloader. And when youre driving for hours in a noisy tank youll get tired quickly.
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat That's bullshit. Nobody was ever thrown in that autoloader. And if you talk about noise, well then your tanks are just as noisy. Don't tell me that the Abrams is quiet inside. The Russian tanks are lighter, more mobile and have better mobility. And if a war erupted before the Abrams was built between NATO and Warsaw Pact, the Warsaw pact would've definitely had the advantage in armor and artillery. The Patton tanks were no match for their Russian counterparts.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You know about the accidents with hands cut off by the autoloader but you say "Nobody was ever thrown in that autoloader". It is you thats bullshiting me. And you say that you know more about the safety of than their own crews. Most Warsaw pact tanks werent even used in battle and they have casualties among their own crews. Ask the man without a hand: Did thicker armor and superion mobility help you or your country in any way? He will say No.
Theres the conclusion. T-72 is fucked up.
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat Superior armor and mobility will help you in real combat. The M-60 Patton would've never had a chance against the T-72 or T-64. And just quit with that stupid hands cut off argument. This probably happend several times and it was excessively propagated by the western media. You act like this happens on a regular bases, which is BULLSHIT. And please tell me with specific data how many times did the autoloader cut off the operator's hands or how many times the tank was a "danger for its
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@Paciat own crew"? This is just pathetic propaganda. "Ask the man without a hand"? Do you know any specific man who had his hand cut off? Do you have any data that this happens on a regular bases? No, all you have is a shitty video with an isolated incident and try to make it look like it's something that happens on a regular bases. And this is BULLSHIT coming from you.
And show me just ONE incident in which somebody was "thrown" in that autoloader. This is the biggest bullshit so far.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You thinkthat there are cameras inside all T-72? How should I "show you"?
MAN GOT HIS HAND CUT OF BY THE AUTOLOADER BECOUSE AUTOLODER WAS DESIGNED BADLY. Understand? TANK FIRES A BLANK SHELL THAT EXPLODES INSIDE. EVERYTHING FILMED! Things like that hapened with live ammo, only noone was there to filmed them becouse those were military exercises. Ammo wasnt secured like it is in lets say Abrams.(Ammo hatches blow out and the magazine is separate from the crew)
Paciat 8 months ago
@Paciat "You thinkthat there are cameras inside all T-72? How should I "show you"?" So you saw just ONE short video with an isolated incident with a very old model and you assume this happens all the time. Is this your shitty argument?
As for the autoloader, the only reason why there were SOME incidents in which some got their hands cut off was because they didn't handle the autoloader properly, not because it was designed badly. That's just your bullshit.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@Paciat "Things like that hapened with live ammo" How the hell do you exactly know this? All you have is a shitty video, that's it. Also, I already told you that the incident you see in that video is not caused by the autoloader or the tank. It's stupid to believe this. It probably had something to do with the shell, not the autoloader. This can happen to any tank if the shell is flawed.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1
As a cold war tank solider your talking rubbish
dinkumuk 8 months ago
@dinkumuk And what are your ARGUMENTS? Tell me, how exactly could the US have won a war against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact during the '70s? What would the US have done in case the communists would've invaded the Western Europe? The communists were better armed from all points of view, in specially in the land warfare arena. They had superior armor, superior artillery and a lot of anti-air power to back these up. They were much better armed than you were.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 The same way the Israeli's using M51 tanks took on a numerical superior force of T55/62's.
randomusernamemygod 7 months ago
@randomusernamemygod That's not the same. The T-55s the Israelis fought were downgraded export models and they were operated by inexperienced crews. The soviet's armor was much better and the soviet's armor fighting tactics were far superior to those of the Arabs. If a war had started during the '70s, NATO and US would've been completely outnumbered from both conventional and nuclear points of view.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 There were no Export models of the T55. These were standard T55's given to the Egyptians by the Soviets after the pact they made, which the Soviets completely reorganised and trained the "inexperienced" Egyptians in Soviet equipment and Soviet tactics by the 20,000 Soviet advisors in the country before outbreak of war.
Both Egypt and Syria were equipped with T62.obr1960. Standard Soviet T 62 model used by the USSR and Warsaw pact.
randomusernamemygod 7 months ago
@randomusernamemygod OK, so what kind of tanks did the Israeli used, other than the M51? I know that the Israelis kicked the crap out of the Arabs in those wars, but what kind of equipment did they use? If you ask me, I think it was a MIRACLE that they managed to win against the more powerful armored forces that the Arabs were equipped with. I don't know how they did it. The M51 and the Patton tanks they used were weaker from every point of view than the soviet armor.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@randomusernamemygod er not quite old son,the Russian make TWO versions of the same tank(and indeed all weapons) the one THEY use and the "MONKEY MODEL" this one has poorer sights,a less powerful engine and gearbox and thiner armour(the main gun is also degraded a bit)
the reason for this is two fold
1 this is the tank they would be making AFTER an all out war and
2 they sell the monkey model to other countries to make money
grahamkeithtodd 7 months ago
@grahamkeithtodd There are no downgraded variants of the T-55 and 62's nor were there export versions. They produced such variants only with the the T-72.
randomusernamemygod 7 months ago
@randomusernamemygod really? ytry asking the indians who bought quite a few of them back in the early 1960's! or the iraqies back in the 1970's!
or even the arab countries who bought a hell of a lot of them to use against Israle in the 1973 war...
having looked really closely at these monkey models and compaired them to the real ones,it is scary!
you have to rememeber that the Russians made the ones THEY would use and then looked at ways to make them quicker and cheaper!
grahamkeithtodd 7 months ago
@grahamkeithtodd Oh for god sake, there is no Export versions of the T55 and T62. The manufacturers never made such a version. The only Soviet produced tank to be made into an export model is the T72 and T90. Give me a product model designation of any export T55 + 62. The standard versions were already quick and cheap to produce thats why the Russians used 2 MBT's. Quality T64/80 and the Quantity T72.
randomusernamemygod 7 months ago
@randomusernamemygod Iraq used a different form of T54/62 and that was the Chinese Type 59/69, which they used in large numbers. The Type 59/69's were copies of the T54/62 and they were improved over the Soviet version with stabilised guns and extra frontal + Turret armour. Again no export models for those tanks also during that time except for the 90's+ with the Type 59P, which is an Advanced Variant that uses third Gen tank components.
randomusernamemygod 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 The americans planned to use the territory of the former GDR to drop tactical nuclear bombs on russian tank divisions and so on. Russia attacks and moves into GDR and the americans would´ve dropped the nuclear holocaust over GDR just to stop the russians. They would´nt have had a chance otherwise. The sheer numbers of the russian army at that time speak for itself. No chance for ANY other country to fuck em up in the 70´s. Napoleon learned it, Hitler too, but some people are just dumb
oberchobo 7 months ago
@oberchobo Well, that's my point. The Americans wouldn't have stood a chance in front of a soviet invasion without using nuclear weapons. They were inferior in conventional weaponry. But there would've been a problem: the Russians also had tactical nukes aimed at Europe. And their tactical missiles were even better than the American ones. Si if the American had used nukes, even tactical ones, the Russians would've done that too and from that point it would've been just a very small step to
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@oberchobo the use of the strategic missiles thus a full nuclear war which would've lead to the destruction of the world. That's why the Americans simply couldn't have used any kind of nukes. Because the use of any type of nukes would've inevitably led to a full nuclear war. So if the soviets did decide to invade Western Europe, there was nothing that America could've done. The soviets were simply better armed from all points of view. This was also in part to stupid, sissy politicians that cut
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@oberchobo a lot of good weapons systems programs during the '70s.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 U are delusioned punk.
Russian tanks are pure joke......
ViciousCritique 8 months ago
@ViciousCritique No, the CNN propaganda about them is a pure joke.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 U are full of shit kid.
ViciousCritique 8 months ago
And now that i think about it, we DEFINITELY would have had the upper hand. The A-10 warthog, something the russians had no equal to. Russian tanks are rather delicate on top, unlike allied tanks, so a barrage of 30mm gatling fire is just as good as a missile. And, dont forget, the A-10 is designed to take multiple hits.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi The A-10 is also pretty easy 2 shot down with low altitude anti-aircraft & portable anti-aircraft systems, like the Tunguska M, Tor M1 or the portable systems that the Russians were very skilled at. Just 1 or 2 elements, like the Apache & the A-10, can't win an armored warfare against a foe that is superior in armored hardware and tactics.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
An A-10 can take loads of damage before going down, and they can outmanuver incoming fire from a Tungska M, and have countermeasures against their missiles. Not to mention we have anti-radiation missiles that home in on the enemy's radar, effectively taking out SPAAGs before planes are even within their range. And Helicopters would be behind tanks, shooting ahead of them, not foolishly out in front.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi The A-10 can't take the 30mm fire from the Tunguska M or its missiles or Tor M1's missiles. That's a crazy statement. U had/have anti-radiation missiles. That wouldn't helped too much. Also, the soviets had this type of missiles as well.
As 4 helicopters, how easy do u think it would be 2 get behind enemy tanks, that r heavily protected by anti-aircraft fire both in the form of missiles and high rate of fire cannons? The chances 4 the Apaches 2 do that would've been very slim.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Heck, we'd definitely have the upper hand with our air arm. Better everything, from interceptors to bombers. We'd have been able to achieve air superiority and been able to bring out our fearsome AC-130's (Came out during the late 1960s) to truly wreak havoc.
And, who knows, depending on whether or not it became a naval battle we could have had naval gunfire support the whole time (16inch gunfire support :D). We could defeat their anti-ship missiles, but they couldn't defeat ours.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Again, the AC-130, is just a big target 4 relatively cheap anti-aircraft weapons.
As 4 a naval battle, don;t be so sure that u would've had the upper hand. The Russians had more subs that could dive 2 deeper depths & they always had much more powerful anti-ship missiles. The Kashtan M & the S-300 naval variants r more than capable of dealing with the USN's Harpoon and anti-ship Tomahawk which r subsonic, thus relatively easy 2 intercept & shoot down.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
AC-130's are only used in conditions of air superiority, at altitudes where short range missiles and ground based gunfire cant reach. You take out whatever medium and long range SAM sites there are from out of range with the appropriate ordinance and then call it in.
The difference between the allied and soviet navies is in sheer numbers, we could outnumber their ships three to one and fire barrages of missiles (Or gunfire) at them, overwhelming whatever they are capable of dealing with.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi How do u think the AC-130 is used? Let's look at its weapons. The most powerful 1 is is 105mm howitzer, which is not designed 2 launch high altitude attacks. The AC-130 has no weapon that it can use from high altitude attacks.
As 4 the soviet navy vs US navy, the soviets had more subs & much more powerful anti-ship missiles. Ur navy would've suffered EXTREMELY heavy losses. It would've won a war with the soviet navy, but at a MUCH higher cost that it should've.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
As far as sumbarines go, we outnumbered russian subs almost three to one. Just the LA and Sturgeon class combined number over 100 (The most numerous types during the cold war), to the russians 35-40 combined total built. And they were just as capable, if not better, than their soviet counterparts. Not to mention at the very end we built the largest and most advanced hunter-killer of all time, the seawolf class.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Where do you get these numbers from? Can I see your sources?
The soviet subs were able 2 sink at higher depths (being much harder 2 detect & hit) & they were faster. They also had dedicated cruise missile subs that could launch anti-carrier cruise missiles.
As 4 the Seawolf, the Akula class is just as advanced & they r built in larger numbers.
But please, here, we talk abt armored warfare, so let's not diverge, OK? :)
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Here is something else, apart from what we've been talking so far. Look how high the M103's suspension system made the tanks to be. With the Walter Christie's suspension systems, height would've never been a problem. With the Christie's suspension system, u could've mounted a large turret on the tank & still keep a very low profile. Furthermore, the tank would've been more mobile too. Just another arguments i favor of the Walther Christie tanks design & suspension systems.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
is that midgets riding that tank ?
heisenfeis 1 year ago
Wow! I didn't think there were any M103's around.
memonk11 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL its great isn't it, I love the shit fuel economy on tanks, makes them more fun....I thought you were a greenpeace activist though
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
Holy crap thats huge.
kurtczp 1 year ago
Nothing like 20/20 hindsight.
memikell 2 years ago
red china got js-2 stalin in 1950...not sent into korean war...soviet js-4 (200 tanks) guarded across the yalu river 1950!...korea was headed for ww-3!
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago
this tank is a counter to js-2...js-3..js-4...and t-10 lenin...had korean war dragged on...or if we crossed the yalu into red china etc...a golden oldie!
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago
My first RV!
Speed and power!
8TH ID
palonejr 3 years ago
8THID = ?
harry4468 3 years ago
@harry4468 8th Infantry Division?
agt155 6 months ago
if anyone can understand the comment below please write a translation
harry4468 3 years ago
que salao que taba ese tanqueeeee guacho
morgothmelkor11 3 years ago