The best Tanks are they Russians? (3 Viewers)

[Currahee Chris]

A US war with China/Russia isn't even remotely on the radar screen. if for some reason it should come about, might as well kiss all of us goodbye- we won't be talking about who did what right or wrong. It won't matter. All players on that board FULLy understand that the survivability of the human race will be at stake, not the political agenda of one nation or the other.

We have no reason to go to war with China. Strategic planning on that level looks more at ICBM and nuclear defense- first priority- how do we stop a nuclear onslaught, second priority how do we strike back. Tanks, Hummers, Bushmaster, etc, etc are all completely irrelevant at that level.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

In 1930 the world didn't think war with Germany was on the radar screen. Certainly the U.S. didn't expect Pearl Harbor.

While I agree with you generally about the dominance of nuclear weapons, you can't kill everyone with them. If nuclear weapons were the be-all and end-all of combat between super-powers, why did the U.S. and Russia bother investing in the rest of their conventional military over the last fifty years? Once both sides deplete their stores of nukes there may still be plenty of conventional fighting provided the world's atmosphere/environment has not completely collapsed by then.

Also, the U.S. has already fought elements of the Chinese/Russian military in both the Korean and Vietnam war without resorting to the nuclear option. Mutual assured destruction may make the nuclear option the last choice rather than the first one, especially if war with China sneaks up gradually and then catches both sides by surprise in a land battle. In that case the U.S. troops on the ground would certainly appreciate having enough tanks to save themselves, regardless of what nuclear consequences follow.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

All players on that board FULLy understand that the survivability of the human race will be at stake, not the political agenda of one nation or the other.

Lastly, if that were true, then all the nations of the world would have voluntarily disarmed all of their nuclear weapons long ago for the sake of the human race and planet earth. The fact that many countries are in fact expanding their arsenal at present (in blatant contravention of prior ballistic missile treaties) is testament to the greed, nationalistic arrogance and frankly utter stupidity of the human race. That's why I don't think war between the U.S. and China is too far out.

 

[Capitolron]

Lastly, if that were true, then all the nations of the world would have voluntarily disarmed all of their nuclear weapons long ago for the sake of the human race and planet earth. The fact that many countries are in fact expanding their arsenal at present (in blatant contravention of prior ballistic missile treaties) is testament to the greed, nationalistic arrogance and frankly utter stupidity of the human race. That's why I don't think war between the U.S. and China is too far out.

CS is right - War with China is not that out of the question. We have been planning responses to China invading Tawain for years - during my time on the House Armed Services Committee - the things that China has done with its military is very scary. We can still beat them in a fight - CS is wrong on the technology capabilities side of his argument. We have an edge for now - but, the future is still up in the air.

And with the possibilty of a Democrat President who would cut Defense Spending - especially in R&D - in favor of Social Welfare Programs - China does have a chance to jump ahead of us.

The China of today is safe - but, when their political system comes under attack within - I dont think they will roll over like the Russians did. In fact 1989 in T Square would be nothing what they would do to hold on to power.

So we better keep up - or plan to fight it out.

 

[damian]

I don't think a big conventionla war is on the cards as the old MAD principle holds true for China as it does for Russia. I feel geurilla war is the way of the future and I really feel that conventional soldiers do not understand this concept. Despite very successful tactical successes both the Rhodesain and South African armies failed to defeat what were in essence lightly armed geurilla movements. I am subject to correction, but I have only heard of one geurilla war that has ever been won by a conventional army and that was Malaya. Conventinal soldiers are not taught to think politically at all. In fact the whole principle of a western army is one of officially being non-political. In a geurilla army that is unheard of. It is the political solution to geurilla war that is so important. Despite all the heroic books about Northern Ireland the Bristish army were unable to defeat the IRA over 30 years. Maggie Thatcher always said we don't talk to terrorists. Tony Blair said what do the terrorists want lets give it to them and we now have peace. Once a military type movement is dragged into conventional day to day politics that involves mundane things like collecting the garbage and organizing the school year all their romantic appeal disappears and they are usually exposed as ordianry politicians with petty agendas and we resort to politics as usual.

Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Glad to hear you agree Ron. One thing though - I'm not convinced it's necessary for the U.S. to continue pouring trillions down the hole into defence contractor pipe dreams, black projects and missile defence systems that will never work because they can easily be defeated by dummy warheads. Part of my argument is that the current U.S. fascination with high tech is part of the problem and may come back to haunt it later. In WWII the US (and allies) didn't win because they had better tanks or equipment or technology than the Germans. They won because they focused on proven and reliable technology and could simply outproduce them. Despite what we’ve been led to believe, both world wars were won by pure quantity as much as quality of the armies.

So while continuing to develop a next-gen tank is a good idea because tanks are always a key part of war, the US would do just as well to churn out a few thousand more abrams and train the crews to man them. China will always have the lead in numbers but there comes a point where no technology can make up the difference and it would be better to try to close the numerical gap before it grows too large. So instead of letting the R&D departments of corporate defence firms run away with the whole budget (which they'll spend on brilliant ideas like computer-controlled armies right out of Terminator), I think building more current-gen tech would certainly be a lot more cost-effective way to maintain parity so there is some money left over for those "social welfare programs”.

Finally, this is another reason why shipping our entire capital infrastructure over to China for its cheap labour was not the brightest idea in the world. In the event of war we're gonna need all that to build our weapons except now China can cut us off completely from our own factories, requisition them, and turn them against us!

China after all is a monster of our own making thanks to free trade and they wouldn't have the wealth to afford all their new weaponry if we stopped buying their consumer goods. But then I guess we wouldn't have K&C eh?

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Tony Blair said what do the terrorists want lets give it to them and we now have peace. Once a military type movement is dragged into conventional day to day politics that involves mundane things like collecting the garbage and organizing the school year all their romantic appeal disappears and they are usually exposed as ordianry politicians with petty agendas and we resort to politics as usual.

I agree fully that the human race could work out ALL its problems peacefully if it would only try to do so more often. However, I fear with the coming global shortage of oil (and disruption due to climate change) the concept of "sharing" everyone learned in kindergarten will be thrown out the window in favour of every side grabbing for what little liquid gold remains. Unconventional war will undoubtedly be a major fixture of the 21st Century, however when you play the numbers game it is the conventional war that is most worrying as it has the greatest capacity to obliterate people and countries on a mass scale. The U.S. lost more men in a single hour of a single battle during the Civil war, WWI and II then it has due to terrorist actions in the entire 4+ year Iraq/Afghan war (or Sept. 11 for that matter), not to take away in any way from the ultimate sacrifice laid down by those casualties for their country.

 

[damian]

I just want to let you know that when I said I remember these armoured cars form my youth, I was not inside them. I was outside them waving placards at them with slogans like Troops out of Townships now and Free Nelson Mandela. They all look pretty scary when you do that.
Regards
Damian

 

[binder001]

Dave The Leopard II is in Afghanistan right now with the Dutch Troops - its doing great !

Handling the hordes of Taliban tanks?

It will be a while before we see anyone face massed armor battles such as seen in Desert Storm. It WILL be interesting to see if Leo II proves more survivable to IEDs - that seems to be the more likely scenario for the foreseeable future with the cowardly filth that the West is fighting now. Although any tank will be vulnerable to a big enough bomb.

Gary

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I just want to let you know that when I said I remember these armoured cars form my youth, I was not inside them. I was outside them waving placards at them with slogans like Troops out of Townships now and Free Nelson Mandela.

That's something you can be proud of... "Unconventional war" at its finest.

 

[debrito]

Between Germans and Soviets Tanks which one was more effective from 1941-1943

(Barbarossa 22 June 1941 and Battle Kursk summer 1943)?

Regarding the armoured shield, speed and power capability:

Germans

Panzer III
PanzerIV
Tiger I
TigerII

Soviets

T-34
KV-1
T-35

Cheers

Visit

Return to source of the post,

Which WWII Tank was the best?
Here in my point of view, one of the best, a Russian KV-1, just finished yesterday.

KV-1, 1941 1:32 scale.

Cheers

 

[Capitolron]

Handling the hordes of Taliban tanks?

It will be a while before we see anyone face massed armor battles such as seen in Desert Storm. It WILL be interesting to see if Leo II proves more survivable to IEDs - that seems to be the more likely scenario for the foreseeable future with the cowardly filth that the West is fighting now. Although any tank will be vulnerable to a big enough bomb.

Gary

Gary

The Leo II is a great tank. I have spoken with several US Armor Officers who agree with that fact - as far as which is better - well, youre right we will really not know until it sees real armor to armor action - but, many NATO Countries like the Leo II.

When it comes to Armor Production - Germans are some of the best around - Present and Past.

Ron

 

[Tex]

If I am not mistaken, some of the armor on the Abrams is depleted uranium. Does the Leo II have the same armor? I would imagine that, being a NATO tank, there must have been shared technology.

 

[OzDigger]

The Soviets and Germans endured the largest tank encounters of the war and nothing proves the effectiveness of a tank than battles against a difficult enemy.

Imo the best tank of WWII was the Russian T-34/85 which had a good combination of armour, armament and mobility. It was also reliable and available in large numbers - being important battlefield considerations.

 

[binder001]

Imo the best tank of WWII was the Russian T-34/85 which had a good combination of armour, armament and mobility. It was also reliable and available in large numbers - being important battlefield considerations.

Again, the tank was and is just part of the combined arms team. No tank will ever be better than its crew. Look at how the "excellent" T34/85 was so roughly handled by M4A3E8 Shermans in Korea, or how modified Shermans could defeat Soviet T54s in the Sinai in 1967. Israeli M48A2s and Centurions were killing Egyptian IS III's, which they should not have had a chance against according to experts.

Capitolron - I agree the Leo II is a cool piece of machinery, but I can just feel the veins in your neck swell up each time I jibe you about them. ;-)

Gary