Very nice build all around. Makes me want to get some of these 64's and 90's that are being released!

I have a question about Soviet/Russian tanks in general.. they seem to be much smaller in size than their Western counterparts like the M1, the Challenger or the Leopard Although they are known for their huge trucks and other vehicles). Do the Russians have a different philosophy in building tanks by using less computerized equipment in the turret and things like that... or is it just my imagination, since I haven't seen something like a T-90 next to an M1 or a Leopard?

I was just wondering

Hisham

thanks everyone
Jamal, I used Valejo russian green lightened with Tamiya buff. although it turned out a little darker than I wanted.

Hisham,I think the Soviet/russian tanks are smaller because they wanted a smaller target to hit. I was very surprised at how low the T-72 was standing next to it.

The Russians did VERY exhaustive studies during and after WWII dealing with armor. They then decided and designed based on what they thought was needed for the future. They found that the smaller the tank, with the best turret frontal armor, ended up surviving longest. They found that roughly 80% of Europe has line of sight of 300M or less. They decided that a auto-loader helped ease the need for more conscripts. This worked out well until the 1980's when the tech revolution really exploded (think digital and think thermal imagers, etc...) The Russians had the best night vision devices up to that period, for example.

They built very good tanks, tanks that would have done very well for what they were designed for, for a war that never happened.

Hello everyone

Here is my IMHO on Soviet tank designs.
I
It all started during WWII when Soviet military authorities and ordinary tank crews were impressed by a very well balanced combination of features of our T-34 and the Allies - by German heavy tanks. The armour and fire power of the latest were exceptional, but they suffered lack of mobility and off-road performance, plus complex design. This caused numerous losses of otherwise undamaged vehicles due to mud and/or frost. In addition, it's been proved that most hits on WWII tanks were spotted within 80-140 cm above ground, so it was decided that future tanks should have low silhouette with maximal protection of the aforementioned area and no extra weight elsewhere.
Even the heaviest Soviet tanks of the period were not as heavy as their counterparts.This is the reason why JS-7 with its outstanding armour and fire power never entered service, low production cost was taken to consideration here as well.

During the transition period, when heavy and medium tanks began to transform into one common category we now call MBTs, Soviet designers didn't go too far from T-34 and JS-2/JS-3 weight and size.
II
On the outbreak of the Cold War Western Allies had well-developed industry to create and produce their own vehicles in the U.S.,West Germany,Britain,France and even Sweden and Israel. Thus, all these countries could have use their combined tank arsenal should the war stopped being 'Cold'.

Soviet Union had to support the Warsaw pact countries, plus China,North Korea,Vietnam,Cuba,African and Middle Eastern pro-communist regimes by supplying them with weapons and ammunition. Those weapons had to be transportable and relatively simple to operate and maintain in different climatic and terrain conditions, as well as (sometimes minimal) knowledge and skills of their crews. That is to say,they had nobody to rely upon in terms of production,so, huge amounts of vehicles were needed.
According to the doctrine of the time it was agreed that the Soviet army would pay with 3 of its T-72s for destruction of a single Leopard or Challenger during offensive.
Hope my opinion was interesting,thanks for reading.

Best wishes and happy modelling to all!!!!!

Jacques and Paul, thanks for your input on Russian tank design.. interesting insight.

So, does that mean that Russian tanks nowadays are significantly inferior to Western tanks.. or have the Russians somewhat closed the gap with tanks like the T-90?

Hisham

Hey Hisham!

I believe they are almost identical. When comparing Western and post-Soviet designs you should understand they wanted to achieve the same in their own way. For instance, Merkava has never been evaluated as an example of successful design because of its frontally installed engine, which is believed to be a vulnerable spot for the Russians, while the Israeli think it is good to cover the crew compartment.
T-90 is not just a simple update of T-72 family, it has numerous modern features like spotting and aiming control devices, active and passive armour protection. It is significantly smaller, although the gun of the Russian vehicle is traditionally 125 mm,5 mm bigger than those of Leo, Chally, Abrams and the rest.

Cheers!!!

Thanks for all the info, Paul!

Hisham

Best answer is it depends on what you want...

Russian tanks are smaller, harder to hit, and very well armored/armed/digitized. Comparable. They are lighter/smaller (think easier to transport/roadmarch) They are also more cramped (think greater crew fatigue over time). Soviet tanks are cheaper to produce. ALL tanks come with a logistics train reaching back to their parent nation which can complicate repair/replacement.

Hi Everybody
Every Tank has its Strong & Weak areas, and a vehicle can only, or should be judged by its Combat History.
Now this all Boils down too Politics, everybody thinks there Tank is the Worlds Best. Depending on who you listen too or what you read, it should be based on Combat Performance. Now there is No Perfect Vehicle, even the Abrams can be Knocked out. Some say the Leopards are the Best, But the Leopard has not Proven itself in Combat, and we all know how the Germans Pride themselves on there Tanks.
Now if you take time too Look at the Trade Show Advertisements then the Soviets make the Best tanks in the Universe; But they Still haven't Changed there Design Biggest Weak-Points. Until they change the Auto Loader Carousel they will be Prone too Heavy Losses.

CHEERS; MIKE.

I think combat history has a big part to play in analyzing the effectiveness of a given tank or armored vehicle. It can't be the end of the argument obviously, but I think its important to take it into account. In the case of Russian tanks there are some odd discrepancies- the T-64 has never been in combat- apart from one incident in Moldova but there's not a massive amount of detail around that and, as far as I know, it only involved one tank- a BV version.

A big engagement between western and soviet designs was the Iran-Iraq war but the lessons learned here are difficult to apply for a myriad of reasons- the main two being a lack of info on the biggest tank on tank engagement of that war and the fact crews of both tanks lacked the skills of the original tank users (America, Britain and Russia) and thus could not really use the tanks in the way they had been designed to be used- very, very close engagements were the norm in that war.

The T-72 has, again, been up against American and British armor twice in the Gulf and it was found wanting- the lessons learned and the reasons why are myriad and tomes have been written on them.

The T-80, I always thought, had another strange battlefield record. It was committed in Chechnya but it was considered somewhat of a disaster- the crews who received it had very little training on it and didn't know how to use it properly- they even made simply mistakes like leaving the engine to idle for long periods- this was okay on a diesel powered tank but a turbine powered T-80 just drank all the fuel idling and left it with severely reduced range or no fuel at all so it became combat-ineffective. The Chechens also knew a lot about Soviet tanks because many had served in the Red Army and knew the armor quite well- thus in some instances they were able to destroy T-80s by targeting weakpoints they knew about.

Eventually tank combat in Chechnya came to a strange point- more advanced tanks like the T-80 were withdrawn from combat and reliance was placed more on the T-72 and also heavily upgraded T-62s that had seen action in Afghanistan and proved their worth ther. These T-62s were relatively cheap to run, in massive abundance and the modifications were relatively straightforward but effective (brow armor, slat armor etc) and these tanks again proved their worth.

Then you have more interesting decisions in the short Russian war against Georgia in 08- no T-80s or 90s were combat deployed- the bulk of Russian armor forces were T-72s and the odd T-62 (along with lots of IFVs)- in a way this did make sense since the Georgian Army only had a small amount of tank armor and nothing beyond T-72s hence the Russians didn't really need to deploy anything more advanced.

As Jacques and Paul and Mike have pointed out, Soviet tanks have their strong-points and the reasons they have given are perhaps the main reasons why they are so popular across the world, especially in poorer nations. Their overral design, features and unique marketing options make them popular and appealing and I doubt that will change. They are fascinating in this respect and, I hope, as I have shown, their combat record is just as interesting and what I have described is only a tiny little bit of post-war Soviet tank combat history.

Dylan, sorry for the mate!

Thanks to all for some very interesting info and insight!

And I guess I, also, should apologize for "derailing" the topic

Hisham

LOL
I think it is a good kind of derail. I am always interested in learning more history.