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?
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.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.
With a POD post-WWII, can the Soviets produce better, more reliable MBTs that are actually capable of matching Western tanks quality-wise?
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.
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 thatDidnt 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
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?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
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.
Better? Weren't their tanks the best already?...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely not.
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.
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.
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.
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.