One point to keep in mind is that a tank’s paint-job is either difficult or impossible to see under various viewing conditions, especially at long distances. A backlit tank – such as one seen against the horizon skyline – may simply appear as a dark silhouette, in which case its shape will be the identification feature that will call the most attention to itself.
We may want Russians to appear uniform, with nice green tanks and red stars, I recall many descriptions of Russian regular soldiers at a distance as a “dirty, shoeless, without uniforms”. No doubt most soldiers appear this way after a few days in the mud.
from the air they just looked like a mob, but underestimating their toughness and ability was a huge mistake. This from an era where tanks didn’t come with luxuries like…seats…or working exhaust systems…cough…
The first warning of an enemy tank’s presence was often the total loss of half-a-dozen vehicles within a few seconds, forget actually seeing where it is or gun flashes…you’d be running for your life.
We may want Russians to appear uniform, with nice green tanks and red stars, I recall many descriptions of Russian regular soldiers at a distance as a “dirty, shoeless, without uniforms”. No doubt most soldiers appear this way after a few days in the mud.
from the air they just looked like a mob, but underestimating their toughness and ability was a huge mistake. This from an era where tanks didn’t come with luxuries like…seats…or working exhaust systems…cough…
Yes, the Russians in WWII did indeed practice what could be called “spartan pragmatism” when it came to their tank production, and in a more general sense in various other aspects of their war effort. The manufacturing of the T-34 was poorly finished by western standards, but the Soviets (who on some occasions reputedly drove tanks out of factory buildings and straight into combat) had no time to waste on aesthetic niceties; they took the practical view that tanks are built to fight, and that since tanks don’t necessarily last long in active combat there’s no point in devoting manufacturing work to anything other than functionality. And even the functionality element was something on which the Russians were very bare-bones at first, though they improved as the war went on. I think, for example, that the original T-34 turret was so small that the tank commander had to do double-duty as the gunner, which was very awkward in terms of combat effectiveness.
They didn’t even provide for a turret “basket” from which seats could be mounted such that he didn’t have to wedge himself up against the gun and sight just to be able to fight.
And paint? Rust is good paint.
Don’t know if you’ve seen it but there is a video online from 2015 or so of them restarting a diesel ISU-152? that has been parked in a field since 1948-1950…I’m not sure how this is possible with mice living in the cylinders and oil residue harder than asphalt but apparently, it can be done, because they start it after considerable effort, get it on a truck, then onto a rail car under its own power, all with what appear to be its original factory tracks…
Don’t know if you’ve seen it but there is a video online from 2015 or so of them restarting a diesel ISU-152? that has been parked in a field since 1948-1950…I’m not sure how this is possible with mice living in the cylinders and oil residue harder than asphalt but apparently, it can be done, because they start it after considerable effort, get it on a truck, then onto a rail car under its own power, all with what appear to be its original factory tracks…
I haven’t seen it, but I believe it. There’s an apocryphal (but not improbable) story about a Russian air force officer and an American counterpart having a conversation during one of those occasional detente periods during the Cold War, during which the Russian remarked: “You Americans build fighter planes like nice ladies watch. Very pretty, very dainty. Drop watch on floor; watch breaks. We Soviets build fighters planes like Mickey Mouse clock. Big, ugly, heavy. Drop clock on floor, clock stops; pick up clock and shake, starts working again.”
Heh heh good one CWO. The AK47 epitomizes that. In defense of American fighters, even though it was gold plated, John Boyd did a heck of a job with the F-15. F-16 as well
Soviet aircraft moved to using their guns over missiles while the US went the other way and it bite us in the ass during Vietnam. Soviet tanks are cheap and okay for their era but they had issues like I heard that older model T-55 and even T-62’s had a crank instead of power controls for moving their turrets.
Heh heh good one CWO. The AK47 epitomizes that. In defense of American fighters, even though it was gold plated, John Boyd did a heck of a job with the F-15. F-16 as well
And it should also be noted that Soviet fighters weren’t as entirely Mickey Mouse as they appeared at first glance. When Viktor Belenko defected to the US in a Mach 3 capable MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor in the mid-1970s, US authorities publicly ridiculed the plane for being built out of heavy steel rather than titanium, and for having a vacuum-tube radar. In private, the same US authorities weren’t laughing quite so loudly: the steel airframe allowed inexpensive large-scale production; the plane did in fact have some titanium, concentrated in the high heat-stress areas (like the leading edges of the wings); and the vacuum tube radar combined a high power output with high resistance to temperature variations and to electromagnetic pulses.
Their tech and engineering are solid. Their stuff is well-built and has been since the 1930s, its just roughly built.
US Tech and equipment are often cutting edge, and works well in service, especially carrier aviation and fleet stuff which Russia hasn’t focused on in a long time. But its expensive and probably irreplaceable, during a big war.
Those USSR designs and the tanks are old, and outmoded, but they’re plentiful and assad has lost some thousands of tanks and AFVs and still has thousands more.
The Russians are clear leaders today in reactive, kit based armor and active defenses–some of these sensors can detect the launch of a WGM (Wireguided missile) and slews the gun automatically down the flight path, firing in suppression against the AT team, before the missile can complete its flight (hopefully). There is a revolutionary (but simpler) system (that the US also deploys, but not necessarily on tanks) that fires an intercepting projectile against the approaching missile to destroy it right before it hits the vehicle.
These systems, if widely deployed, would eliminate the need for ever thicker armor, using better defenses, instead of layering on more of the same.
That’s because each nation during WWII learned different lessons during that war. USSR build their tanks to be cheap because they know they will lose equipment and men. They accept that losing soldiers is going to happen so they tend to use numbers to gain the edge, however they haven’t needed to do this since WWII. The last tried this in Afgan and it didn’t work so well.
The US can’t take loses for $hit, so we try to destroy you from the air, far way, as fast as possible and units that are designed to be in your face while fighting are armored up.
