AHC/WI: Better quality Soviet tanks?

With a POD post-WWII, can the Soviets produce better, more reliable MBTs that are actually capable of matching Western tanks quality-wise?
 
With a POD post-WWII, can the Soviets produce better, more reliable MBTs that are actually capable of matching Western tanks quality-wise?

Remember that the Introduction of the T55 resulted in all Western tanks eventuially being rearmed with the British L7 105mm (it was designed to replace the British 20 pounder and US 90mm guns almsot as a drop in replacement) in order to deal with it

And the T72 was again a game changer - its frontal arc pretty much invulnerable to the L7 at battle field ranges

Challenger - Abrams and Leo 2 followed suit

So its not like they didn't produce decent tanks
 
Engine problems critical?

With a POD post-WWII, can the Soviets produce better, more reliable MBTs that are actually capable of matching Western tanks quality-wise?
This is not from an especially reliable source but Andrew Cockburn in The Threat, (1982) claimed the Soviets had problems producing high-powered engines for tanks, APCs, etc. The engine used for the T-54/T-62 and T-72 series was the original T-34 engine souped up as far as possible. That itself had IIRC been copied from a French aero-engine. The reasons for this lack seem to have been partly problems with high-tech alloys, which also affected their aircraft engines.

He also said the Soviets did try to copy one NATO tank engine for the T-64 but unfortunately copied the British multi-fuell monstrosity that (sort of) powered the Chieftain. They would have done better with any US diesel I suspect.

However, as I'm not an engineer or tech maven, take that with a pinch of salt (Siberian if you wish :) ) until confirmed by an expert.
 

Insider

Banned
Better? Weren't their tanks the best already?...
If they were even better and soviet industry would be able to produce these super tanks in as great numbers as OTL, that could entice Soviet command to thinking that they could conquer continental Europe. NATO would be in turn more willing to use nukes to stop them (because their own tanks would be even worse in comparision).

That would led to global termonuclear war.
Fungi would rule the Earth.
 
This is not from an especially reliable source but Andrew Cockburn in The Threat, (1982) claimed the Soviets had problems producing high-powered engines for tanks, APCs, etc. The engine used for the T-54/T-62 and T-72 series was the original T-34 engine souped up as far as possible. That itself had IIRC been copied from a French aero-engine. The reasons for this lack seem to have been partly problems with high-tech alloys, which also affected their aircraft engines.

He also said the Soviets did try to copy one NATO tank engine for the T-64 but unfortunately copied the British multi-fuell monstrosity that (sort of) powered the Chieftain. They would have done better with any US diesel I suspect.

However, as I'm not an engineer or tech maven, take that with a pinch of salt (Siberian if you wish :) ) until confirmed by an expert.

Didnt the British use the Meteor (effectively a Merlin) for the late war and early Cold war tanks and this engine was the basis of British Tank Powerpacks right up to the Challenger (Perkins)

So its not unheard of to use an aero engine and use it for generations of Tanks
 
I thought the T-72 was the export available knock off of the superior (and not exported) T-64. Western intelligence thinking the T-72 was more advanced simply because it had a higher model number.
 
With a POD post-WWII, can the Soviets produce better, more reliable MBTs that are actually capable of matching Western tanks quality-wise?

A said by severals people already :

- severals soviet tanks were a bad surprise for the NATO,

- the exported versions were always downgraded than the versions used at home, and soviet versions were always better than versions from others WP countries,

But the most important thing :

The soviet tanks that international experts see fighting were crewed by people from third world societies (who lacked mechanic and electronic education), from armies where the soldiers were treated as shit by uneducated NCO, and where officers were choosed on their political reliability, as shown by most of the arabic armies against Israel.

When used by motivated crews, north vietnamese for exemple, the soviet tanks prooved to be superior to US tanks left to another not motivated and undertrained crews (South Vietnam). Even the north korean with T-34 give a good lesson to US forces in the first months of Korean War.

Being a cavalryman during my military service, I learn a lot about soviets tanks and nobody in NATO armies think they were bad. The simple fact was the NATO preferred to use others ways of destruction of WP tanks than a simple tank vs tank battle.

I thought the T-72 was the export available knock off of the superior (and not exported) T-64. Western intelligence thinking the T-72 was more advanced simply because it had a higher model number.

From what I learned, T-64 had a lot of problems, and the first version of the T-72 was simply a T-64 without these problems. Later this tank evolved so much than keeping the name of T-72 was a way of masquerading things.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely correct

Didnt the British use the Meteor (effectively a Merlin) for the late war and early Cold war tanks and this engine was the basis of British Tank Powerpacks right up to the Challenger (Perkins)

So its not unheard of to use an aero engine and use it for generations of Tanks
Correct (though I think the Chieftain used a new engine that was a disaster). And there was nothing wrong with the engine used in the T-34 series either. Cockburn alleges that
1) The Soviets up to 1982 hadn't developed a replacement from scratch.
2) The T-34 engine simply couldn't be upgraded sufficiently to be both powerful and reliable, going the T-72 serious mobility issues.
His sources were Jewish Red Army ex-servicemen who'd migrated to the US and the US Opfor teams who used them and other Soviet hardware. These were less impressed than the 'threat analysts' given coverage in the media. The ability of the T-72's autoloader to feed its gunner's limb (leg I think, could be the arm) into the breech instead of a shell was considered a pretty big No-No also.

As I say, that source was a long time ago and in its own way as biased as the Hawks seeking funds for new toys. So it may not be correct but IF true would explain why the post-war Soviet tanks were generally lighter than Allied ones and had flaws such as the inadequate derision of the main gun, which hampered them taking up hull-down postures.
 
T-72 vulnerability

Remember that the Introduction of the T55 resulted in all Western tanks eventuially being rearmed with the British L7 105mm (it was designed to replace the British 20 pounder and US 90mm guns almsot as a drop in replacement) in order to deal with it

And the T72 was again a game changer - its frontal arc pretty much invulnerable to the L7 at battle field ranges

Challenger - Abrams and Leo 2 followed suit

So its not like they didn't produce decent tanks
Maybe - but I think the Israelis were able to use the 105mmL7 quite successfully against T-72s. Though perhaps that simply reflected Israeli tankers superiority in battlefield tactics going them ample shots at the more vulnerable flanks and rear?

Still, it's not so much the Soviets made bad tanks. Just they had flaws which hint at engine problems.
 
I thought the T-72 was the export available knock off of the superior (and not exported) T-64. Western intelligence thinking the T-72 was more advanced simply because it had a higher model number.

No. The T-72 was a new tank alltogether. And the T-64 is considered by some to be the worst post-WWII tank the Soviets ever produced.
 

Sior

Banned
Russian tanks were designed for the Cranfield Man.

The study of ergonomics really took off in the post war period with the Cranfield Institute of Technology at Cranfield University. They took a look at a lathe and worked out what the ideal body shape was for its operator where they can comfortably reach all the controls. They termed this human "Cranfield Man". Cranfield man was 1.35m tall, with shoulder width of 0.61m and arm span of 2.44m...

2oIgSZd.jpg
 
The Soviet V-2 was based off of an aero engine, and it was a big displacement unit, roughly based off of the 1920s BMW VI. Articulated connecting rods, that BMW was one of the first to make that work reliably in a large Vee, unlike the Sunbeam Arab that tried that setup during WWI

The WWII era V-2 was 500 HP@1800 for 2368 cu. inches. 1600 lbs/ft torque 1984-2380 pounds weight
. The V-46, the version used in the early T-72, is an improved V-2 and did 780HP and 2100 lbs/ft torque

The Continental AV-1790A was 1792 cubic inches and weighed 4700 pounds, but was 750HP with 1575 lbs/ft torque. Was much more reliable, however.
 
Maybe - but I think the Israelis were able to use the 105mmL7 quite successfully against T-72s. Though perhaps that simply reflected Israeli tankers superiority in battlefield tactics going them ample shots at the more vulnerable flanks and rear?

Still, it's not so much the Soviets made bad tanks. Just they had flaws which hint at engine problems.

IIRC it was that, but also because early model export T-72s lacked the composite armor Soviet T-72s had, resulting far lower effective protection.

Don't quote me on this, though, I don't remember where I heard it.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The T-64 and T-80 were highly advanced relative to other tanks of their time. They had 125 mm guns while most NATO tanks had 90 mm and 105 mm guns, and in addition they could fire missiles from their guns. The tanks did suffer from mechanical complexity and high fuel consumption though.
 
The [Soviet] tanks did suffer from high fuel consumption though.

Versus like West German Leopards sure, versus the Abrams fuel sucking machine they were sitting pretty.


Edit of everything else I wrote: eh, Bad@logic put it more succinctly than I, read that one instead :). Only thing I'd add is computers, as that is important if both crews are equal quality with reasonable/expected support.
 
Last edited:
Soviet tanks were perfectly good at their role. It wasn't their fault that the majority of times they were used they were either being used in something they were never intended to be fielded in - ie. unconventional warfare against rebels and irregulars - or were utilized by Arab armies which are generally disastrous regardless of what sort of equipment they used. The Iraqi army of today performs disastrously with Western tanks; if I recall they've managed to lose M1 Abrams to enemy troops planting explosive charges on them or some other enterprise that should be completely suicidal, because they're incapable of grasping the essence of combined arms warfare and don't realize the utility of having infantry accompanying their tanks. The user is ultimately much more important than the tank.

The Indians used Soviet tanks without any problems, against the principally American backed Pakistan, so it isn't like the Soviet vehicles were always on the losing side. Soviet tanks were designed for the doctrine and strategic situation faced by the USSR, which was offensive operations through the European plain in a conventional-nuclear warfare scenario. In this operation, the Soviet armored forces were probably the best equipped and best configured for such operations of any nation in the world. Admittedly they started to fall off a bit during the 1980s, but the entire Soviet system was falling apart at that time and they had a lot more problems than just tanks, the Soviets fielding an additional MBT or upgrade is irrelevant.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Versus like West German Leopards sure, versus the Abrams fuel sucking machine they were sitting pretty.


Edit of everything else I wrote: eh, Bad@logic put it more succinctly than I, read that one instead :). Only thing I'd add is computers, as that is important if both crews are equal quality with reasonable/expected support.

Some of the early T-80 variants used a gas turbine engine, which of course resulted in a high power to weight ratio as well as high fuel consumption. Later models used high output diesel engines.
 
Maybe - but I think the Israelis were able to use the 105mmL7 quite successfully against T-72s. Though perhaps that simply reflected Israeli tankers superiority in battlefield tactics going them ample shots at the more vulnerable flanks and rear?

Still, it's not so much the Soviets made bad tanks. Just they had flaws which hint at engine problems.

A lot of tanks in the 70s had issues

Chieftain - really bad power pack - it was slow - good armour with a big gun

M60 - really big target and it armour was not as effective as people had thought at the time - and armed with the excellent but not good enough for the T72

No. The T-72 was a new tank alltogether. And the T-64 is considered by some to be the worst post-WWII tank the Soviets ever produced.

I'd not heard that - I only thought that the 'issues' with T64 was that it was too expensive to mass produce in the number that the Soviets believed was needed and was a more complex tank than they had used before leading to training issues. It pioneered a lot of tech that would be seen in later Russian tanks and like all new equipment has teething issues - mainly with the new engine and auto loader in the T64s case.

Absolutely not.

They had their moments

T55 drove the need for a whole generation of Western tanks - Chieftain, M60, Leo1 plus up-gunning the existing Centurions and M48s

Then the appearance of the T72 drove development of Challi 1 + 2 , Leo2 and Abrams.

IIRC it was that, but also because early model export T-72s lacked the composite armour Soviet T-72s had, resulting far lower effective protection.

Don't quote me on this, though, I don't remember where I heard it.

T72 as I understand it was originally designed to be frontally impervious to the British L7 105mm gun at battlefield ranges - and used a composite armour with a relatively low silhouette.

The later versions used by the Russian army are effectively a different tank to the one seen exploding spectacularly in Iraq which apparently are 'monkey' export versions.

Hence why the Americans and Germans developed the big 120mm dart thrower and the British improved their existing 120mm rifled gun


Versus like West German Leopards sure, versus the Abrams fuel sucking machine they were sitting pretty.


Edit of everything else I wrote: eh, Bad@logic put it more succinctly than I, read that one instead :). Only thing I'd add is computers, as that is important if both crews are equal quality with reasonable/expected support.

It is very interesting to note that despite the popular image of the M1 Abrams being a fuel hog (which it certainly is but not quite as bad as people make out) in US service in the large scale and relative long distance battles that they have fought in - its not really been a problem for them.

And despite having 2 'drop in' replacement engines (1 a more efficient gas turbine and the other a modern 1500 HP Diesel) developed over the last decade - the US Army has been a bit 'meh' about making the change and all they have done is fit a better and smaller more efficient and better placed APU (so the main engine can be shut down more often).

So I have to conclude that its not as big an issue as people think!

Soviet tanks were perfectly good at their role. It wasn't their fault that the majority of times they were used they were either being used in something they were never intended to be fielded in - ie. unconventional warfare against rebels and irregulars - or were utilized by Arab armies which are generally disastrous regardless of what sort of equipment they used. The Iraqi army of today performs disastrously with Western tanks; if I recall they've managed to lose M1 Abrams to enemy troops planting explosive charges on them or some other enterprise that should be completely suicidal, because they're incapable of grasping the essence of combined arms warfare and don't realize the utility of having infantry accompanying their tanks. The user is ultimately much more important than the tank.

This is correct - the weapon is only as good as the man behind it.

The Iraqi army example you give is actually worse than that - the 'Brigade' with 2500 men and a company of M1A1 (minus the DU inserts) Abram's as well as many other vehicles (Armed Hummers and APCs) got wind that about 200 - 250 ISIS troops were approaching using Technical's (that is Toyota pickups with heavy weapons jury rigged on the back).

The Iraqi Brigade, despite out numbering the approching force by 10 : 1 and being far better armed, almost to a man abandoned their state of the art tanks, threw away their modern weapons, discarded their pristine uniforms, donned civvies (some dressing as women if some reports are to be believed) and left town ASAP.

They did not even destroy their weapons and ammo.

Utterly contemptible behaviour

My old Sea Cadet unit could have done a better job than that and their was only about 50 of us!

The Indians used Soviet tanks without any problems, against the principally American backed Pakistan, so it isn't like the Soviet vehicles were always on the losing side. Soviet tanks were designed for the doctrine and strategic situation faced by the USSR, which was offensive operations through the European plain in a conventional-nuclear warfare scenario. In this operation, the Soviet armored forces were probably the best equipped and best configured for such operations of any nation in the world. Admittedly they started to fall off a bit during the 1980s, but the entire Soviet system was falling apart at that time and they had a lot more problems than just tanks, the Soviets fielding an additional MBT or upgrade is irrelevant.

The Pakistanis also used Soviet / Chinese equipment - although the most famous engagement is Asal Uttar Sept 10 1965 where Indian Centurions out fought Pakistani M47 and M48 Patton's

But neither side showed particular skill at arms in the use of armour when in the attack in those wars of 65 and 71.

As for the Red Army Spamming thousands of T55s in the 60s and then thousands of T72s in the late 70s and early 80s was assuredly a Quality all of its own.

Some of the early T-80 variants used a gas turbine engine, which of course resulted in a high power to weight ratio as well as high fuel consumption. Later models used high output diesel engines.

The T80 was also like its predecessor the T64 a more complicated tank than the T72 and has as a result of this been retired from the Russian army in favour of the later T72s and T90s
 
Top