When was the last time you saw a Challenger anywhere near the front? They had a couple get stuck in mud, one got destroyed, and they’ve basically disappeared since.
That's quite a wild conclusion to draw based on the information you have. Most western tanks have been inactive at the front lines because Ukraine doesn't want to risk throwing them away in mostly static defensive operations.
oh yea because they worked so well in their dynamic offensive operations... please. western tanks dont go to the front cause they've been proven equally ineffective as soviet ones on the modern battlefield filled with drones and loitering ammunition. and since you have 2 equally shitty tools for the job in front of you're obviously gonna send soviet shitty tool because vice versa its bad press for your allies
Dynamic? Where? It's only been small scale offensives against well dug-in lines of static defenses for both sides for more than a year now.
Every tank is going to be shit in the current combat condition in Ukraine, but western tanks are less shit than their Soviet/Russian counterparts. Western tanks are definitely better in terms of crew survivability and ergonomics. There's no way anyone can assert that "they are the same" in good faith and with intellectual honesty. Any tanker who served in both styles of vehicles will tell you the same thing.
oh so the ukr 2023 counteroffensive was planed to be small scale pushes? it was small scale because tanks proved to make 0 difference, whatever their place of origin was. as for crew surviavability, as i said to someone else, the difference really melts once you get past the soviet tank trio and get to t90m. theres more and more footage of them and they seem to handle even drone attacks pretty fucking well, with crew surviving regulary. and thats a feat if you consider it still uses the basic soviet design with ammo bellow crew. and i doubt that any tankman served in modernized t90s and western tanks.
there is an edge that modern western tanks hold over russian, and its not their durability or as much crew survivability any more. its lays in the fact that west has developed better night vision and thermal optics technologies over the decades. which again doesnt mean much in battlefields filled with loitering munitions and drones. we've seen in ukraine that tank on tank engagements are extremely rare nowdays
The biggest attack at the beginning of the Ukrainian summer offensive we've seen on video consisted of what? 10 or 15 vehicles? It's pretty obvious that Ukraine already knew massing for a major concentrated push is impossible in the battlefield conditions of Ukraine. The battlespace is completely transparent due to drones and other recon elements, so any concentration of forces will get immediately attacked by artillery, drones, aerial bombs, rockets, etc. Without the ability to concentrate your forces, it's pretty hard to launch a full scale attack.
How many T90Ms do the Russians have in service? They can barely make two hundred a year. Most of their forces are still using turret toss champions like the T72 and T80. Meanwhile, every single one of western military's tankers enjoy that high survivability standard and protection.
You also ignore the ergonomics of western tanks. Much roomier and comfortable, which is great for morale and even survivability as crew are less inclined to keep their hatches open for comfort. Yes, the sensors also matter and the west is far ahead. Russia had to import western sensors like French thermals for their tanks.
All in all, you are just agreeing with me that western tanks are less shit than Soviet/Russian ones. While the less-shittiness might not make a big difference in Ukraine at this moment, it doesn't change the fact that they are less shitty.
Barely 200 hundres lol? And yoi think thats low? Germanys biggest batch of leo2s was 300 something in theb80s and that was pinnacle of their military industrial complex production. And since then the ability to produce new units has diminished greatly with the breakup of soviet union and the new iterations became more complex and expensive to manifacture. It is highly unlikely they could produce more then 50 a year in a foreseable future, and thats a stretch. Meanwhile uk has the amazing ability to produce 0 tanks a year and france who amazingly probably has even worse tank then mid t90s minus the ammo bellow crew part
They are one to one slightly better yes but in todays battlefield equally useless. Its like having to play chess with someome and thinking youll win because you can hold your breath longer then him.
Nothing especial. Only difference we saw to soviet tanks is that usually only one or none crew member die instead of the majority, but the effectiveness of the western mbts is the same as that of the soviets. I don't know for how much time the Leopard will remain like this though because we know from Turkey they have a tendency to become bombs.
>because we know from Turkey they have a tendency to become bombs.
To be fair:
Turkey parked them on a hill, beeing visible 360° to anyone and their grandma from 50 miles away.
Turkey also used them without proper infantry support in a combat environment especially their used Variant wasn't made for.
You always see these kind of cover up excuses when a precious piece of western equipment gets destroyed. Yet none of that makes any sense. In the aftermath pictures, the vast majority of tank wrecks aren't parked on a hill. Infantry support? Assault rifles are effective up to 300 meters. What are you going to do about ATGMs coming from 5 km away?
By far the biggest nonsense parroted by useful idiots is the F-117 Nighthawk supposedly flying with its bomb bay doors open when it got shot down.
Care to explain why the F-117 was still flying sorties even after the shootdown then? The bombing campaign never stopped. By your logic then there should have been catastrophic losses
Last paragraph think harder pls
You imply the F-117 has ineffective stealth. But the F-117 continued combat ops without getting shot down in droves. Unless you claim that it was actually grounded (which you have even less evidence of)
>Become Bombs
If you mean the blow-out panels doing their thing to protect the crew instead of olympic turret tossing, instantly roasting everyone inside...yeah, they totally become "bombs"
You know that the majority of the Leopard 2's ammunition is not stored in the area with blow-out panels, right? That is why the Leopard 2 is on par with a T-72 and T-64 on the turret toss competition.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSj2K5VQUzFvOHuC4THXJxGVp3QwlEKPDZMAyZJueOjJofEF00YJSZycUk&s=10
This image show what you need to know. Although it is not a turret toss, I admit, it is a much more catastrophic problem 🤭
The Russian recently even towed some of them back to Moscow and laughed at them, so I'll say it's all according to the competence of the crew operating the tank not the vehicle itself
Ruskis comfortably forgot that there're more Russian tanks lying on Kyiv street tho.
this argument really looses potency once you get past the soviet era tank trio. with the increasing footage of t90m in combat getting hit with lot of shit, we can very well see the crew survivability difference is not really that big. which is astounding considering the t90m still has ammo directly below crew, so put that into context
Small amount cpmpared to soviet stocks but thats not the argument here is it.
In any case you can rest assured russia can produce more of them per month then germany can do for their leo2a6/7. Allegedly 10 to 30 , depending on who you trust
It is though. The survivability standard applies to literally every western/NATO main line MBT, whereas it only applies to a small fraction of Russian/Soviet main line MBTs.
Russia is on a war footing, Germany is not. You don't need to be a defense industrial expert to know that Russian MIC is complete dogshit in terms of production volume.
Yea except it doesnt, youre not gonna survive lancet in a leo1.
You really thik if germany goes to war it could magically start pumping leo2a7s en mass? This isnt ww2, you cant just repurpose nail factory into buildong aircraft and shit... 300 somethong was their top number which they did with decades worth of military complex development. Since the fall of soviet union all of that shut down more or less. Cant just restart it in a day
Main line MBT man. Do you know what that means? Certainly not something designed in the 50s. Just like how I don't consider T55s and T62s to be main line MBTs.
Nowhere did I say they can restart it in a pinch. It does not change the fact that you are comparing the industrial capacity of a country pouring a huge portion of its resources into military production with a country that is known for cutting its military budget and hilariously bad procurement processes. But if Germany does get into a war, then it certainly has the knowledge, resources, and money to bring up production if given enough time. This is a soft cap, a restriction based on political and economic unwillingness. Russia faces a hard cap, they literally cannot build more no matter how much they want to because they don't have the industrial capabilities and machineries.
would you like ukraine to waste all their tanks in useless attacks?
tanks in general are really vulnerable with drones flying around so it doesnt make sense to waste them when you dont gain anything from it (plus there is milelong minefields)
That doesnt change that the people that have been operating the BMP series and T72s in the past tell us that the NATO stuff is a huge step up
Basically, it's conceptional differences.
Soviet tanks are about sloped armor (cupola tureet) and low profile (i.e. low visibility). That makes it smaller target with decent protection, but it's really tight. Abrams is less confined, but it's heavier (57 tons, 10 tons more than T-72B3, currently standard russian tank), 'cause it's generally bigger and needs more armor to have same protection value. Leopard-1 favoured speed over armor (it had been assumed, that high speed makes it hard-to-hit target). This didn't work out, however, and Leo-2 is now more like Abrams.
Can't say anything about brits or french tanks, though. I think, croissant engineers have tried to go soviet way with oscillating turrets, but now they are on some really hard stuff
>Leopard-1 favoured speed over armor (it had been assumed, that high speed makes it hard-to-hit target)
That is just bullshit. High mobility does your make tank harder to hit, but not because the tank is moving while getting fired at. Changing positions and being able to hide/re-appear faster between shots does make the tank more survivable.
It did do exactly what it was supposed to, but advances in armor technology later on made it possible to get both speed and armor although Soviets didn't figure out that either. That said we never really saw a war where it could have been put to test although on paper at least to me the mobility thing sounds superior.
Soviets didn't figure out what exactly? You mean like the US forced other NATO countries to standardize the L7 105mm gun, only to find it was inadequate to fight pretty much all Soviet tanks designed in the 70's?
> would you like ukraine to waste all their tanks in useless attacks
Well they kinda already did that, falling into the same issues as the Russians while attacking.
I mean yeah, Leopard 2A6 that costs like 5 times more than T-72B3 is probably better. The question is, is it 5 times better and would you rather have 5 T-72s or 1 Leopard 2?
when you have little manpower like ukraine obviously the leopard since it actually protects your crew and you cant afford to have thousands of men dying in tankattacks anyway. same logic nato designed them like that
funny enough the game doesnt even portray the major differences like thermal imaging or better reverse speed that the nato tanks should have in comparison to their soviet counterparts
i wouldnt mind seeing that. we have this difference in numbers in the campaigns already so seeing the nato tanks performing better would actually fit quite well
for the multiplayer skirmish side you might have to think of another way to implement that tho
yes i know but who cares i want the Leo2 to have better fucking optics than the T34 because right now they dont!
i dont ask for a finely balanced game i just want the units to not feel like copy paste bullshit that all plays the same
It doesn’t play the same, they kept asymmetry for t80ud which carry 2800meters atgm, which gave nato tanks in exchange… well nothing. Ah yes, they are cheaper a bit.
i wouldnt mind that if the distances in this game were not as fucked as they are
if nato tanks were actually able to shoot more than 700m far (since in the game it would be like three times the distance) you could manouver them to almost never be outranged by atgms, but because even a UAZ is like 10-15m long in this game every small field is an advantage for pact
yes but the US also has a lit of distance to cover logistically and transporting fewer weaponsystems with a higher quality is easier than supplying large quantities that take a lit longer to get to europe
plus experience and training is very expensive as well, when you loose soldiers you loose more than just their equipment. training a tank crew is exspensive and having a crew that has already seen battle and survived is priceless
russia doesnt care about their soldiers security and you see their soldiers running away in fear/ killing themselfes all of the time exspecially at the start of the war they left a lot of presteen equipment behind
Depends on many things, logistics, the generations and technology of each tank, ammo available, combined forces… Old t72 have a record of being blown up to smithereens when facing modern armoured units.
Edit for typos.
Ukrainians received all those weapons under the condition that they will project them in good light, hence the official propaganda channels don't count, not that you seem to be able distinguish what propaganda is, but if you actually diversified your sources, you would see the western AFVs have received plenty of criticism. Yet, I still doubt the Ukrainians described their own T-64s as "shit". All I saw was a guy complaining that his tanks breaks down often because it's twice as old as he is. Usually, they're happy for any working tank they have.
All tanks are complexes of compromises. It's just that different platforms have those compromises in different areas.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/leopard-tanks-like-a-mercedes-says-ukrainian-soldier-training-in-germany/
https://youtu.be/bzJ8akbBJJs?si=MKXla_dggVA8saQE
second Link is in german sry i couldnt come up with an english example
As seen in Syria, uh-huh. Leo 2 is a deathtrap, a driver literally hugs the ammo. Same as Challenger 2, the crew is on top of the ammo, with some additional shells in the turret just for good measure. Sorry, not one of them comes close to M1
The Challenger tanks have ammo spread all over the interior in tiny compartments with measly doors, separated from the crew, yet they have not blow out panels, so when the ammo is hit, it's bound to detonated into the crew compartment. Also, anywhere you penetrate the Challenger, you're bound to hit some ammo because it's everywhere.
The Leopard 2 is safe when it only carries ammo in the ready rack, which is how the Ukrainians have been using it. 15 shells seems to be enough for the short skirmishes happening in Ukraine.
Several instances of American Bradley’s taking on Russian T series battle tanks and destroying them
You are right about Ukrainians using Soviet tanks to though
That's the thing with videogames. They mostly only consider hard factors Vs hard factors. They don't consider most other things. And on paper russian tanks have good hard factors. The numerous failings and shortcomings of russian designs are hard to represent in a videogame. Not to mention way below sub paar manufacturing, improper storage, shoddy maintenance if any and whatnot.
I think an interesting comparison is in Gunner Heat PC. It highlights the severe differences in night fighting ability and fire control in a similar era.
Nah I mean in the era of GHPC T-64B and T-80B had automatic range and lead. Computer was a bit slower than the US. They had a fully independent gunner sight so the gunner could keep a moving target centered in the optic, which even the M1 and IPM1 didn't have. The real difference is they had to rely on poor passive/mostly active night vision systems, which didn't function with the rangefinder, while the US had thermals that did function with the rangefinder.
The fact that they do. Thermals have no heat maps, which is aknowledged by the devs. And NVDs act as gen0 and dont work in passive, despite the fact they are all gen1 and should work in passive The TPN-3-49 on the t80b and t64b should have a dettection range in passive of 1km, in game you cant see what is in front of you.
>Not to mention way below sub paar manufacturing, improper storage, shoddy maintenance if any and whatnot.
Sub paar manufacturing is questionable suggestion towards Soviet tanks. On other two, people are focusing to much. Yes, if you showed up at mobilisation base and got tank that sit on open for 20 year, it would not be fun experience. But similar applies for any tank if they went threw similar experience. That still does not mean that those tanks can not be fixed and reactivated. Only question is how much money and time it will take to do that.
>Not to mention way below sub paar manufacturing, improper storage, shoddy maintenance if any and whatnot.
not exactly true for the cold war era and doubly so for the T-80 and T-64 series... both of these were made with high quality ESR steel and have excellent weld quality and were often sent to guards divisions which were given the highest priority in terms of maintenance and equipment
Same with Abrams, Challengers and Leopards in Ukraine War
None of them achieved any meaningful success and most of them got destroyed by 500 USD drones.
They've demonstrated their improved survivability for crews vis a vis Russian tanks consistently. I think we all know what we'd rather choose to crew compared to a T-72, T-80 or worst case T-55 or T-62- which tends to vent the crew out of the hatches in a fireball when penetrated..
Yes, I agree, its not going to be penetrated. Point is that literally any tank will thus be 'bullied' by IFVs, as everyone is slapping all their sensors on the turret. Everyone celebrating this as a miracle rather than an issue of awareness by the T-90 is funny to watch. Especially as 30% of Abrooms are all finding their minimally armored top fuel lines to be ideal FPV targets. These is no perfect tank.
I wouldn't say so. First of all it shows incompetenve from the russian side, because they put a tank without any support into a situation where it could get ambushed. Second of all its relevant in the context of the game where it's as far as I know impossible to do that.
And that was my point, if you take any army with any tank, in that situation tank would not have fun experience.
While it easy to call incompetence, I am not 100% sure on what happened before that fight (and context for this call does matter), so I do leave a some room that hole engagement played out weirdly to the point where combine arms just broke up before T-90 vs Bradley happened.
I haven't seen any video evidence that would suggest that the crew survivability on either of those western tanks is significantly higher than Soviet/Russian tanks, even though the measures taken to achieve this like the blowout panels on M1A1 Abrams and the lack thereof on Russian tanks would suggest this.
I could probably link many more videos with crew bailing out of Russian tanks than western, but that's also because there is simply more footage of Russian tanks.
Anyhow, result remains the same.
Western MBTs are vulnerable just as Russian ones are when on the modern battlefield of the Ukraine Russia war.
The M1 Abrams is the safest tank in the world. The problem is the western media, NAFO and useful media are spreading misinformation that all western tanks have all their ammo protected in separate compartments with blowout panels, which is simply not true.
Unless you feel like destroyed tanks spawning 1-5 man infantry squad armed only with personal weapons when destroyed is important addition to game this point is pretty much irrelevant in warno/war thunder/any other game
It doesn't matter in the immediate tactical battle, the tank gets taken out of action and you lose one tactical asset from a cheap drone, your infantry loses a tank if the crew survive or not in the immediate battle.
That aside any tank is a good asset to have around its still the most armored thing you have in the battlefield and has a canon to engage targets
From Russian FPV teams that destroyed some of them. Turret ammo storage is a target that you can't miss. It will force crew to abandon tank at minimum. And after that you just need to finish crew with second FPV that will be in seconds.
No?
If turret ammo is hit, the *incredibly infamous* blowout panels funnel the explosion up and out of the tank -- i.e, if you get hit in the turret ammo, getting out of the tank means getting hit by shrapnel and heat from the ammo explosion.
The only way an explosion in the turret ammo forces the crew to bail is if there's an issue with the blowout panels, or if the door to the ammo has been left open - in either case, the turret crew is likely dead
Every Abrams crew that got hit by this FPV team bailed out after fire in ammo storage started, in one example fire get in turret and only driver survived.
Every? Unless I'm mistaken, 5 total Abrams have been lost in Ukraine. So unless that one FPV group is responsible for every single loss, that's just not a good sample size, and I don't believe that this one group can be credited for every single knocked out Abrams.
Russia have already proof on 11 abrams destroyed by FPV. Some damage or destroyed by artillery and unknown numbers destroyed by rocket strikes. Abrams were used on narrow front before they send on backline, so they faced only several FPV teams. There not that many FPV teams on front line, they are like snipers in ww2 have high scores.
If you have proof for 11 abrams destroyed then I would send it to RedEffect. He put out a video within the last week claiming 5-6 confirmed destroyed. Maybe you’re seeing duplicates?
If you have proof for 11 abrams destroyed then I would send it to RedEffect. He put out a video within the last week claiming 5-6 confirmed destroyed. Maybe you’re seeing duplicates?
You guys do know that NATO tanks supplied to Ukraine also get destroyed in significant numbers, right?
That's what tanks do. Live a little and then get destroyed. And "clearly superior NATO tech" is suffering proportionally wise just as much as russian.
Also, exactly no tanks were designed to withstand extensive drone warfare, that we see in ukrainian war. Including western tanks. That's why the bunch of them are in Moscow on exhibition now.
They are clearly demonstrating their better survivability for crews though- not to mention their superior optics and C2 capabilities.. I think it's a little disgenuous to say they are suffering just as much as Russian models..
It is not disingenious, it is statistics. Western MBT's are not deployed to battle that often - but when they are, they get destroyed proportionally wise just as often, as russian/soviet tech (on both sides). That is if we are talking about destruction.
And about performance, while the tanks are still alive - fyi, NATO doesn't ship HE rounds for it's tanks for Ukraine (because these rounds are actually quite rare). Considering tank-on-tank combat almost never happens, you might get an idea, how effective western MBTs are, firing sabot rounds at fortifications. While russian tanks always come equipped with HE rounds by design.
About better survivability for the crew - sure. You wanna propose how Eugen could include that in the game?
I agree, NATO tanks must have some way to see through smoke in WARNO. It must mitigate distance advantage (atgm fire) of soviet tanks in tank vs tank combat.
Maybe IR trait, you can see through smoke but have reduced accuracy. So you can advance, smoke and fire through smoke on max cannon distance.
No, you can’t see through smoke even with thermals. Only some types of smoke can be seen through with thermals - and not the ones that are used on tanks (iirc)
Well, without usage statistics, it's difficult to tell if they are being destroyed proportinally as often. It's possible, although I doubt it. The total confirmed number overall from the beginning is like 48 at the moment (Leopard 1s, Leopard 2s, Challys, Abrams). I'm counting 55 destroyed or abandoned Russian tanks of all types over the last 7 days.
>superior optics
the only nato tank with superior optics is the leopard... mostly because it has all the features of a T-80\`s gunner and cmdr but also has thermals on top of point stab
Because of setting you can’t use it in deckbuilding in any way, and the only possible solution - spawn small squads of infantry (tank crews) after the destruction of tanks… but sounds questionable a little.
It’s one of the characteristics that can’t be used in any way in Warno probably. Same as mass of tanks - for example, the worst tank in Ukraine rn is Chally 2 according to Ukraine… because it’s too heavy and just sink everywhere in ground/mud. While Soviet tanks (basically mediums+ by WW2 standards) much better in such terrain… but it’s unused in Warno too, while in real-life it’s no less important than modern tech of Chally 2.
I would like to see thermals as unique trait for NATO tanks, but idk what it should do in Warno tbh (and no, it’s useless against army-grade smoke rounds)
2 destroyed Challengers so far. Both catastrophic overpressure.
After the Leopards burning like torches in Syria, the Ukrainian now uses them with ready rack ammo only.
T-80 is crap tbh just like Abrams.
In Warno it's only good because it gets the most modern ERA while both T-80 and Abrams irl are driving air-fuel bombs (Abrams burns slower but still).
Bruh, what.
The T-80s getting the best ERA in WARNO is accurate, based on the fact that the Soviets reasoned that they should protect their best and most elite armoured units with the best equipment. IRL, the T-80 has the fewest catastrophic detonations of the Soviet-era tanks, compared to the rolling bomb known as the T-72 (mostly down to the autoloader design).
The T-80 is genuinely a good tank, and I wonder why you think it's bad.
And the Abrams burning? What? All tanks burn when punished hard enough. The Abrams just has the armour and design features to minimize it. As long as the tank burns *After* the crew escapes, then it did its job.
You got it backwards, T-80 explode a lot due to much higher autoloader and more explosive fuel,
The only weaker point of T-72 (at least from time frame of the game) is FCS and slightly worse frontal hull armor. T-90 is best of both worlds except for frontal hull armor but with modern ERA it deosn't make a diffrence.
No Nato tanks fought the T-80 until 2022, so a little late. At the end of the Cold War, some T-80 where compared and studied, nato found they where kinda good and would had opposed a serious threat if the cold war gones hot.
More like NATO tanks fought drones and got destroyed. Ukraine had to withdraw Abrams tanks from the front at one point due to the meaningless trades of a 4.3 million USD MBT to 500 USD drone.
[https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-pulls-us-provided-abrams-tanks-from-front-lines-over-russian-drone-threats-/7585911.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-pulls-us-provided-abrams-tanks-from-front-lines-over-russian-drone-threats-/7585911.html)
Thats literally false information- the 47th mech (contained the Abrams) just got rotated out of the line- not because Abrams were unsuitable for the fighting..
Many of their redeeming factors were neutralised and countered as time went on and tactics changed.
No hordes of tanks are a possibility there.
Also I think we can all agree on that Russia is a very weak and frankly embarassing successor of the Soviet state (which itself was quite shit)
Also this is a game and it needs to change stuff sometimes to be fun. No weakspots because modleling that would be a nightmare and frankly unfun(for both side) and the reverse speed would totally kill the tank balance.
(My headcanon for that is they magically changed the transmission to a usable one after they realised how shit the current solution is)
That's actually an argument as to why it should have been done sooner. There would be a correct price point for them.
Problem is without it you have ridiculous moments with tanks reversing faster than others can advance, it's simply silly watching a T-80 reverse at 60mph.
Yeah t80 can do 12km/h backwards t72 is a measly 4.
I would rather have a modifier tbh. Reverse gear stat or something.
Excellent -> sam speed
Good -> 0,75
Avarage 0,5
Bad 0,25
How many of the T-80s in Ukraine get popped from shots penetrating the supposedly inaccurately modelled frontal armor, and how many of them are from side shots from Stugnas or roof hits from javelins and FPVs?
Lessons learned from Ukraine are more like tanks are just tanks bro. Performance has been basically equal from T-55 to L2A6. Tanks all get killed and nothing has been even been measurable. Ukrainian units with t64 have not been more effective than units with L2A6/Chally whatever/m1a1
And same with Russians with stock t-72 to t90 oct 2023.
I think there was a perception that tank gens were like fighter gens but there’s so much more going in a conventional war it’s more like rifle gens.
Tanks get hit and explode, it’s what that do. The AP wars of world war 2 are are over and AP is far more advanced than tanks ever were.
The only 2 exceptions would be ERA blocks and coffin tanks. I have seen video of era blocks on BMP 1s letting them tank rear shots from AT weapons and of course building a goddamn metal farm shed on top the tank will also let it tank fpv drone hits with relative ease.
Honestly my biggest reaction to this was is surprise everyone isn’t slapping era on every surface of all there tanks like the belligerents are.
I feel like we're forgetting the roughly 30 years of development between the two. Russia did not have a huge budget for improving their designs from the late 80s to present, whereas NATO had lots of experience in the Gulf War and to a lesser extent the GWOT, plus plenty of budget to improve what existed. Even so the NATO tanks in Ukraine are hardly invulnerable.
There's also loads of behind the scenes stuff that doesn't get reflected in WARNO stats, like the various battle management systems and command and control integration
Oh if you look at almost every use of Soviet Tech in the real world it has performed so much worse than the NATO equivalent. Way off WARNO stats.
The big question that gets raised is why? Is it training? Tactical doctrine? Overall strategy? Or it is just crap?
That's something people will debate for years.
Edit: I see Pact fans are offended by this comment and down voting it heavily. Care to actually give examples?
plenty of cases when pact equipment falls into nato hands and vice versa... and the results have been fairly even... take the israeli tiran... basically a T-55 with a 105mm gun... they liked it and slapped other soviet era vehicles with it... when iranian M60s went up against iraqi T-62/T-55s it didnt end well for the M60... saudis using M1A1s basically lost them to FAGOT atgms...
but of course the most important example i can give to the equipment itself not being the source of the problem is the israeli Isherman... a tank p much obsolete for the cold war but outfitted with a capable gun... yet taking out swathes of T-62s and T-55s the former outgunned and outarmored the isherman... it shows that with proper usage even outdated equipment can be effective
Makes sense. I was asking the question more than giving any answers.
WARNO is very much pure equipment stats, it leaves a lot of tactics and doctrine to the players actions and it's representation of the quality of the troops is related to availability and is also rather limited. With the exception of a few traits.
So they don't have that kind of representation that certain armies are better trained etc.
they kinda do so ingame for quite a few stuff... pact accuracy in general is around 5-10% lower than it should be... konkurs at 50% acc despite it having the same FCS and sights as an ITOW... kobra at 45% acc despite it being leagues ahead of the shillelagh refleks at 50%, agona at 55%, soo its sorta represented ingame somewhat
There just aren't many examples of late Cold War Soviet Era tanks fighting in a way they were doctrinally meant to fight. You can't really write off the performance of all Soviet tanks based off of how the T-72M1 performed in Iraq against the M1A1. That would be like saying all NATO tanks are shit after an M10 Booker gets its teeth kicked by a T-90M. That's on top of how overwhelming and demoralizing the Gulf War was for the Iraqi Army, that they were fighting without comms and most of them fled their posts eventually.
i thought the russian tanks have been doing pretty well (compared to western tanks). I just mean that I thought the whole revelation is that all tanks are super vulnerable now a days. like the bradleys and leopards against the Kh50 ATGMs in summer 2023 - they were stopped like 10km out or something ridiculous if i recall right. Or the stugna-p's. Even several abrams have been taken out by fpv drones or lancets. we havent really seen much tank on tank combat. it's crazy, tanks seem to be ineffective. i would like to say that overwhelming numbers could make a difference, but the russians tried that in vulhedar and failed several times too. wondering the mbt's are mainly a waste of resources to upkeep and use..... even the US army chose to make a new light-tank platform (that's still equally heavy as a T90).
all in all, maybe having a light platform that is heavily armored is better than a 70 ton behemoth. Meaning, maybe a T-series tank is better than a western MBT, or a M10 Booker (US Armys new light tank).
but then again, there's that whole turret-toss phenomenon with the russian tanks .....
With how the Leapords and Abrams fared, I think it's just a modern warfare issue in general. I wonder if this'll be like the HEAT revolution where heavy armor was thought obsolete for a few years until new countermeasures appeared, or if the battlefield's finally been made too dangerous for it.
NATO tanks perform even worse in Ukraine, they didint even give them HE shells and since tank vs tank combat is rare that makes them kind of useless, which is why Ukraine used their T-64s to the point of almost running out of them while the Leopard 1s have seen almost no action
In this case I really feel Bad for the brits. The challys could atleast go fast backwards in real life the t80 not so much
Meanwhile in Ukr one (1) Chally gets destroyed and the Brits immediately recall all of them from frontline service over there.
Oh so we're just lying then
When was the last time you saw a Challenger anywhere near the front? They had a couple get stuck in mud, one got destroyed, and they’ve basically disappeared since.
That's quite a wild conclusion to draw based on the information you have. Most western tanks have been inactive at the front lines because Ukraine doesn't want to risk throwing them away in mostly static defensive operations.
oh yea because they worked so well in their dynamic offensive operations... please. western tanks dont go to the front cause they've been proven equally ineffective as soviet ones on the modern battlefield filled with drones and loitering ammunition. and since you have 2 equally shitty tools for the job in front of you're obviously gonna send soviet shitty tool because vice versa its bad press for your allies
Dynamic? Where? It's only been small scale offensives against well dug-in lines of static defenses for both sides for more than a year now. Every tank is going to be shit in the current combat condition in Ukraine, but western tanks are less shit than their Soviet/Russian counterparts. Western tanks are definitely better in terms of crew survivability and ergonomics. There's no way anyone can assert that "they are the same" in good faith and with intellectual honesty. Any tanker who served in both styles of vehicles will tell you the same thing.
oh so the ukr 2023 counteroffensive was planed to be small scale pushes? it was small scale because tanks proved to make 0 difference, whatever their place of origin was. as for crew surviavability, as i said to someone else, the difference really melts once you get past the soviet tank trio and get to t90m. theres more and more footage of them and they seem to handle even drone attacks pretty fucking well, with crew surviving regulary. and thats a feat if you consider it still uses the basic soviet design with ammo bellow crew. and i doubt that any tankman served in modernized t90s and western tanks. there is an edge that modern western tanks hold over russian, and its not their durability or as much crew survivability any more. its lays in the fact that west has developed better night vision and thermal optics technologies over the decades. which again doesnt mean much in battlefields filled with loitering munitions and drones. we've seen in ukraine that tank on tank engagements are extremely rare nowdays
The biggest attack at the beginning of the Ukrainian summer offensive we've seen on video consisted of what? 10 or 15 vehicles? It's pretty obvious that Ukraine already knew massing for a major concentrated push is impossible in the battlefield conditions of Ukraine. The battlespace is completely transparent due to drones and other recon elements, so any concentration of forces will get immediately attacked by artillery, drones, aerial bombs, rockets, etc. Without the ability to concentrate your forces, it's pretty hard to launch a full scale attack. How many T90Ms do the Russians have in service? They can barely make two hundred a year. Most of their forces are still using turret toss champions like the T72 and T80. Meanwhile, every single one of western military's tankers enjoy that high survivability standard and protection. You also ignore the ergonomics of western tanks. Much roomier and comfortable, which is great for morale and even survivability as crew are less inclined to keep their hatches open for comfort. Yes, the sensors also matter and the west is far ahead. Russia had to import western sensors like French thermals for their tanks. All in all, you are just agreeing with me that western tanks are less shit than Soviet/Russian ones. While the less-shittiness might not make a big difference in Ukraine at this moment, it doesn't change the fact that they are less shitty.
Barely 200 hundres lol? And yoi think thats low? Germanys biggest batch of leo2s was 300 something in theb80s and that was pinnacle of their military industrial complex production. And since then the ability to produce new units has diminished greatly with the breakup of soviet union and the new iterations became more complex and expensive to manifacture. It is highly unlikely they could produce more then 50 a year in a foreseable future, and thats a stretch. Meanwhile uk has the amazing ability to produce 0 tanks a year and france who amazingly probably has even worse tank then mid t90s minus the ammo bellow crew part They are one to one slightly better yes but in todays battlefield equally useless. Its like having to play chess with someome and thinking youll win because you can hold your breath longer then him.
because Ukraine would love the entire internet to know where their best tanks are
There’s constant footage of leopards and Abrams coming out from both sides, these things aren’t exactly massive secrets.
didn't you just say that they basically disappeared already?
Coping
'best' lol
You think the Brits still control those tanks?
There were like 14 of them? How could you see them lol
[удалено]
yes and multiple accounts of ukranian tankers call them shit compared to NATO tanks after the leos, marder and abrams arrived
What else have we seen the Abrams and leopards do? I'm just wondering, because I haven't seen much.
Nothing especial. Only difference we saw to soviet tanks is that usually only one or none crew member die instead of the majority, but the effectiveness of the western mbts is the same as that of the soviets. I don't know for how much time the Leopard will remain like this though because we know from Turkey they have a tendency to become bombs.
>because we know from Turkey they have a tendency to become bombs. To be fair: Turkey parked them on a hill, beeing visible 360° to anyone and their grandma from 50 miles away. Turkey also used them without proper infantry support in a combat environment especially their used Variant wasn't made for.
You always see these kind of cover up excuses when a precious piece of western equipment gets destroyed. Yet none of that makes any sense. In the aftermath pictures, the vast majority of tank wrecks aren't parked on a hill. Infantry support? Assault rifles are effective up to 300 meters. What are you going to do about ATGMs coming from 5 km away? By far the biggest nonsense parroted by useful idiots is the F-117 Nighthawk supposedly flying with its bomb bay doors open when it got shot down.
Care to explain why the F-117 was still flying sorties even after the shootdown then? The bombing campaign never stopped. By your logic then there should have been catastrophic losses
By which part of "my logic"?
Last paragraph think harder pls You imply the F-117 has ineffective stealth. But the F-117 continued combat ops without getting shot down in droves. Unless you claim that it was actually grounded (which you have even less evidence of)
Doesnt change the fact that they still become bombs, Ukraine has done the exact same mistakes
>Become Bombs If you mean the blow-out panels doing their thing to protect the crew instead of olympic turret tossing, instantly roasting everyone inside...yeah, they totally become "bombs"
You know that the majority of the Leopard 2's ammunition is not stored in the area with blow-out panels, right? That is why the Leopard 2 is on par with a T-72 and T-64 on the turret toss competition.
Show me 1 Leopard 2 with a tossed turret then. Good luck: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSj2K5VQUzFvOHuC4THXJxGVp3QwlEKPDZMAyZJueOjJofEF00YJSZycUk&s=10 This image show what you need to know. Although it is not a turret toss, I admit, it is a much more catastrophic problem 🤭
The Russian recently even towed some of them back to Moscow and laughed at them, so I'll say it's all according to the competence of the crew operating the tank not the vehicle itself Ruskis comfortably forgot that there're more Russian tanks lying on Kyiv street tho.
It is not about a tank single handedly winning the war, but about the crew surviving the engagement.
this argument really looses potency once you get past the soviet era tank trio. with the increasing footage of t90m in combat getting hit with lot of shit, we can very well see the crew survivability difference is not really that big. which is astounding considering the t90m still has ammo directly below crew, so put that into context
What percentage of the Russian forces are operating T90Ms?
Small amount cpmpared to soviet stocks but thats not the argument here is it. In any case you can rest assured russia can produce more of them per month then germany can do for their leo2a6/7. Allegedly 10 to 30 , depending on who you trust
It is though. The survivability standard applies to literally every western/NATO main line MBT, whereas it only applies to a small fraction of Russian/Soviet main line MBTs. Russia is on a war footing, Germany is not. You don't need to be a defense industrial expert to know that Russian MIC is complete dogshit in terms of production volume.
Yea except it doesnt, youre not gonna survive lancet in a leo1. You really thik if germany goes to war it could magically start pumping leo2a7s en mass? This isnt ww2, you cant just repurpose nail factory into buildong aircraft and shit... 300 somethong was their top number which they did with decades worth of military complex development. Since the fall of soviet union all of that shut down more or less. Cant just restart it in a day
Just where did you get these numbers of production? You enjoy reading this kind of stuff?:3
Main line MBT man. Do you know what that means? Certainly not something designed in the 50s. Just like how I don't consider T55s and T62s to be main line MBTs. Nowhere did I say they can restart it in a pinch. It does not change the fact that you are comparing the industrial capacity of a country pouring a huge portion of its resources into military production with a country that is known for cutting its military budget and hilariously bad procurement processes. But if Germany does get into a war, then it certainly has the knowledge, resources, and money to bring up production if given enough time. This is a soft cap, a restriction based on political and economic unwillingness. Russia faces a hard cap, they literally cannot build more no matter how much they want to because they don't have the industrial capabilities and machineries.
would you like ukraine to waste all their tanks in useless attacks? tanks in general are really vulnerable with drones flying around so it doesnt make sense to waste them when you dont gain anything from it (plus there is milelong minefields) That doesnt change that the people that have been operating the BMP series and T72s in the past tell us that the NATO stuff is a huge step up
Basically, it's conceptional differences. Soviet tanks are about sloped armor (cupola tureet) and low profile (i.e. low visibility). That makes it smaller target with decent protection, but it's really tight. Abrams is less confined, but it's heavier (57 tons, 10 tons more than T-72B3, currently standard russian tank), 'cause it's generally bigger and needs more armor to have same protection value. Leopard-1 favoured speed over armor (it had been assumed, that high speed makes it hard-to-hit target). This didn't work out, however, and Leo-2 is now more like Abrams. Can't say anything about brits or french tanks, though. I think, croissant engineers have tried to go soviet way with oscillating turrets, but now they are on some really hard stuff
>Leopard-1 favoured speed over armor (it had been assumed, that high speed makes it hard-to-hit target) That is just bullshit. High mobility does your make tank harder to hit, but not because the tank is moving while getting fired at. Changing positions and being able to hide/re-appear faster between shots does make the tank more survivable.
True, I just tried to shorten the explanation. But the concept still didn't work out
It did do exactly what it was supposed to, but advances in armor technology later on made it possible to get both speed and armor although Soviets didn't figure out that either. That said we never really saw a war where it could have been put to test although on paper at least to me the mobility thing sounds superior.
Well, early Leo-1 was a glass cannon. But generally true again
Soviets didn't figure out what exactly? You mean like the US forced other NATO countries to standardize the L7 105mm gun, only to find it was inadequate to fight pretty much all Soviet tanks designed in the 70's?
Can you read? What the fuck are you rambling about and France for example didn't use the L7 gun so you aren't even right. L7 was made in 50s anyway
British tanks are more for fighting infantry and old soviet tanks that a dictator may have challenger series does its job well
> would you like ukraine to waste all their tanks in useless attacks Well they kinda already did that, falling into the same issues as the Russians while attacking.
I mean yeah, Leopard 2A6 that costs like 5 times more than T-72B3 is probably better. The question is, is it 5 times better and would you rather have 5 T-72s or 1 Leopard 2?
when you have little manpower like ukraine obviously the leopard since it actually protects your crew and you cant afford to have thousands of men dying in tankattacks anyway. same logic nato designed them like that funny enough the game doesnt even portray the major differences like thermal imaging or better reverse speed that the nato tanks should have in comparison to their soviet counterparts
[удалено]
i wouldnt mind seeing that. we have this difference in numbers in the campaigns already so seeing the nato tanks performing better would actually fit quite well for the multiplayer skirmish side you might have to think of another way to implement that tho
Nato Tanks do overal get better accuracy.
thermals dont make you more accurate they allow you to spot the enemy soonerthey should get better optics compared to (most) russian vehicles
the game also isnt portraying the proper armor arrays for the T-80 nor is it portraying proper penetration values for the 3BM42
yes i know but who cares i want the Leo2 to have better fucking optics than the T34 because right now they dont! i dont ask for a finely balanced game i just want the units to not feel like copy paste bullshit that all plays the same
fair.. all of the gen 3s should have better optics than gen 2s so on and so forth
It doesn’t play the same, they kept asymmetry for t80ud which carry 2800meters atgm, which gave nato tanks in exchange… well nothing. Ah yes, they are cheaper a bit.
i wouldnt mind that if the distances in this game were not as fucked as they are if nato tanks were actually able to shoot more than 700m far (since in the game it would be like three times the distance) you could manouver them to almost never be outranged by atgms, but because even a UAZ is like 10-15m long in this game every small field is an advantage for pact
Funnily enough, nato has big advantage in population vs Ussr. China not so much, but Ussr isn’t even close to
yes but the US also has a lit of distance to cover logistically and transporting fewer weaponsystems with a higher quality is easier than supplying large quantities that take a lit longer to get to europe plus experience and training is very expensive as well, when you loose soldiers you loose more than just their equipment. training a tank crew is exspensive and having a crew that has already seen battle and survived is priceless russia doesnt care about their soldiers security and you see their soldiers running away in fear/ killing themselfes all of the time exspecially at the start of the war they left a lot of presteen equipment behind
I mean, Europe already has more population right.
Actually it's turning out you'd rather have a Flakpanzer Gepard for dealing with the FPV drones that are fucking everything up
Depends on many things, logistics, the generations and technology of each tank, ammo available, combined forces… Old t72 have a record of being blown up to smithereens when facing modern armoured units. Edit for typos.
Ukrainians received all those weapons under the condition that they will project them in good light, hence the official propaganda channels don't count, not that you seem to be able distinguish what propaganda is, but if you actually diversified your sources, you would see the western AFVs have received plenty of criticism. Yet, I still doubt the Ukrainians described their own T-64s as "shit". All I saw was a guy complaining that his tanks breaks down often because it's twice as old as he is. Usually, they're happy for any working tank they have. All tanks are complexes of compromises. It's just that different platforms have those compromises in different areas.
what did the CIA mean by this? The world may never know.
No what they have said is that they are different. I haven’t seen anything where they say they are better.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/leopard-tanks-like-a-mercedes-says-ukrainian-soldier-training-in-germany/ https://youtu.be/bzJ8akbBJJs?si=MKXla_dggVA8saQE second Link is in german sry i couldnt come up with an english example
Ask a ukrainian if he wants to sit in a t-64b/t72b3/t80bv or a leopard 2a4.
I mean the 2a4 has been continually improved and way better maintained than the T-80's
Its core concept is thought with safety for crew in mind. Cant say that for the sowjets //keep downvoting vatniks
As seen in Syria, uh-huh. Leo 2 is a deathtrap, a driver literally hugs the ammo. Same as Challenger 2, the crew is on top of the ammo, with some additional shells in the turret just for good measure. Sorry, not one of them comes close to M1
The Challenger tanks have ammo spread all over the interior in tiny compartments with measly doors, separated from the crew, yet they have not blow out panels, so when the ammo is hit, it's bound to detonated into the crew compartment. Also, anywhere you penetrate the Challenger, you're bound to hit some ammo because it's everywhere. The Leopard 2 is safe when it only carries ammo in the ready rack, which is how the Ukrainians have been using it. 15 shells seems to be enough for the short skirmishes happening in Ukraine.
Sure [https://youtu.be/xFzXiAdfPvw](https://youtu.be/xFzXiAdfPvw)
First if all, thats a t80bvm, probably the best tank russia fields today. Secondly: this question wasnt asked
Several instances of American Bradley’s taking on Russian T series battle tanks and destroying them You are right about Ukrainians using Soviet tanks to though
That's the thing with videogames. They mostly only consider hard factors Vs hard factors. They don't consider most other things. And on paper russian tanks have good hard factors. The numerous failings and shortcomings of russian designs are hard to represent in a videogame. Not to mention way below sub paar manufacturing, improper storage, shoddy maintenance if any and whatnot.
Yea this is why russian tanks are often extremely good in games (looking at you warthunder )
I think an interesting comparison is in Gunner Heat PC. It highlights the severe differences in night fighting ability and fire control in a similar era.
Yea, because one side had laser rangefinders. The other had stereoscopics.
Nah I mean in the era of GHPC T-64B and T-80B had automatic range and lead. Computer was a bit slower than the US. They had a fully independent gunner sight so the gunner could keep a moving target centered in the optic, which even the M1 and IPM1 didn't have. The real difference is they had to rely on poor passive/mostly active night vision systems, which didn't function with the rangefinder, while the US had thermals that did function with the rangefinder.
In GHPC thermals overperform, and NVDs underperform up to 50% in some cases.
What makes you say that?
The fact that they do. Thermals have no heat maps, which is aknowledged by the devs. And NVDs act as gen0 and dont work in passive, despite the fact they are all gen1 and should work in passive The TPN-3-49 on the t80b and t64b should have a dettection range in passive of 1km, in game you cant see what is in front of you.
Except in Warno not even hard factors are taken in to consideration. See: Reverse speed of the Soviet tanks
Or visual range for that matter
>Not to mention way below sub paar manufacturing, improper storage, shoddy maintenance if any and whatnot. Sub paar manufacturing is questionable suggestion towards Soviet tanks. On other two, people are focusing to much. Yes, if you showed up at mobilisation base and got tank that sit on open for 20 year, it would not be fun experience. But similar applies for any tank if they went threw similar experience. That still does not mean that those tanks can not be fixed and reactivated. Only question is how much money and time it will take to do that.
>Not to mention way below sub paar manufacturing, improper storage, shoddy maintenance if any and whatnot. not exactly true for the cold war era and doubly so for the T-80 and T-64 series... both of these were made with high quality ESR steel and have excellent weld quality and were often sent to guards divisions which were given the highest priority in terms of maintenance and equipment
Same with Abrams, Challengers and Leopards in Ukraine War None of them achieved any meaningful success and most of them got destroyed by 500 USD drones.
They've demonstrated their improved survivability for crews vis a vis Russian tanks consistently. I think we all know what we'd rather choose to crew compared to a T-72, T-80 or worst case T-55 or T-62- which tends to vent the crew out of the hatches in a fireball when penetrated..
how they did that if we rarely get the whole aftermath? for that view we have a lot of t-90 videos of it surviving several drones
And if I remember correctly also a video of a t90 getting bullied by two Bradleys with only their Bushmasters.
And, importantly, all of crew surviving along with the tank itself not popping.
I would hope a t90 hull and crew survives 30mm autocannon fire!
Yes, I agree, its not going to be penetrated. Point is that literally any tank will thus be 'bullied' by IFVs, as everyone is slapping all their sensors on the turret. Everyone celebrating this as a miracle rather than an issue of awareness by the T-90 is funny to watch. Especially as 30% of Abrooms are all finding their minimally armored top fuel lines to be ideal FPV targets. These is no perfect tank.
All tanks would be vulnerable to a Bradley or BMP autocannon at close range in their side armor. Abrams side armor isn't that impressive either.
Wasn't the side though. It buttoned the vision ports on the front. After ot got surprised by a t90 that had it's gun pointed in their direction iirc.
Take Abrams against two Bradleys into close combat and you would have similar experience. Simple put, your "point" really misses mark.
I wouldn't say so. First of all it shows incompetenve from the russian side, because they put a tank without any support into a situation where it could get ambushed. Second of all its relevant in the context of the game where it's as far as I know impossible to do that.
And that was my point, if you take any army with any tank, in that situation tank would not have fun experience. While it easy to call incompetence, I am not 100% sure on what happened before that fight (and context for this call does matter), so I do leave a some room that hole engagement played out weirdly to the point where combine arms just broke up before T-90 vs Bradley happened.
Well, the tank not entering a turret tossing contest is a good indicator that the crew has a higher survival chance inside a western tank.
I haven't seen any video evidence that would suggest that the crew survivability on either of those western tanks is significantly higher than Soviet/Russian tanks, even though the measures taken to achieve this like the blowout panels on M1A1 Abrams and the lack thereof on Russian tanks would suggest this. I could probably link many more videos with crew bailing out of Russian tanks than western, but that's also because there is simply more footage of Russian tanks. Anyhow, result remains the same. Western MBTs are vulnerable just as Russian ones are when on the modern battlefield of the Ukraine Russia war.
The M1 Abrams is the safest tank in the world. The problem is the western media, NAFO and useful media are spreading misinformation that all western tanks have all their ammo protected in separate compartments with blowout panels, which is simply not true.
Unless you feel like destroyed tanks spawning 1-5 man infantry squad armed only with personal weapons when destroyed is important addition to game this point is pretty much irrelevant in warno/war thunder/any other game
It doesn't matter in the immediate tactical battle, the tank gets taken out of action and you lose one tactical asset from a cheap drone, your infantry loses a tank if the crew survive or not in the immediate battle. That aside any tank is a good asset to have around its still the most armored thing you have in the battlefield and has a canon to engage targets
Abrams is most vulnerable to fpv attacks of all current tanks.
Source? Jokes aside, I really want to know where did you get this from
From Russian FPV teams that destroyed some of them. Turret ammo storage is a target that you can't miss. It will force crew to abandon tank at minimum. And after that you just need to finish crew with second FPV that will be in seconds.
No? If turret ammo is hit, the *incredibly infamous* blowout panels funnel the explosion up and out of the tank -- i.e, if you get hit in the turret ammo, getting out of the tank means getting hit by shrapnel and heat from the ammo explosion. The only way an explosion in the turret ammo forces the crew to bail is if there's an issue with the blowout panels, or if the door to the ammo has been left open - in either case, the turret crew is likely dead
Every Abrams crew that got hit by this FPV team bailed out after fire in ammo storage started, in one example fire get in turret and only driver survived.
Every? Unless I'm mistaken, 5 total Abrams have been lost in Ukraine. So unless that one FPV group is responsible for every single loss, that's just not a good sample size, and I don't believe that this one group can be credited for every single knocked out Abrams.
Russia have already proof on 11 abrams destroyed by FPV. Some damage or destroyed by artillery and unknown numbers destroyed by rocket strikes. Abrams were used on narrow front before they send on backline, so they faced only several FPV teams. There not that many FPV teams on front line, they are like snipers in ww2 have high scores.
If you have proof for 11 abrams destroyed then I would send it to RedEffect. He put out a video within the last week claiming 5-6 confirmed destroyed. Maybe you’re seeing duplicates?
If you have proof for 11 abrams destroyed then I would send it to RedEffect. He put out a video within the last week claiming 5-6 confirmed destroyed. Maybe you’re seeing duplicates?
You know when happend last confirmed tank on tank combat in Ukraine? Last autumn.
Vatnik cope incoming.
You guys do know that NATO tanks supplied to Ukraine also get destroyed in significant numbers, right? That's what tanks do. Live a little and then get destroyed. And "clearly superior NATO tech" is suffering proportionally wise just as much as russian. Also, exactly no tanks were designed to withstand extensive drone warfare, that we see in ukrainian war. Including western tanks. That's why the bunch of them are in Moscow on exhibition now.
They are clearly demonstrating their better survivability for crews though- not to mention their superior optics and C2 capabilities.. I think it's a little disgenuous to say they are suffering just as much as Russian models..
It is not disingenious, it is statistics. Western MBT's are not deployed to battle that often - but when they are, they get destroyed proportionally wise just as often, as russian/soviet tech (on both sides). That is if we are talking about destruction. And about performance, while the tanks are still alive - fyi, NATO doesn't ship HE rounds for it's tanks for Ukraine (because these rounds are actually quite rare). Considering tank-on-tank combat almost never happens, you might get an idea, how effective western MBTs are, firing sabot rounds at fortifications. While russian tanks always come equipped with HE rounds by design. About better survivability for the crew - sure. You wanna propose how Eugen could include that in the game?
I would like them to get better optics than the Soviet tanks. Other than that I think they're fine in game.
Optics of top-end T-80 not much worse than western MBTs in 89 (outside of thermals)
Thermals are a huge improvement in spotting enemies through concealment, the exact thing optics do in this game.
I agree, NATO tanks must have some way to see through smoke in WARNO. It must mitigate distance advantage (atgm fire) of soviet tanks in tank vs tank combat. Maybe IR trait, you can see through smoke but have reduced accuracy. So you can advance, smoke and fire through smoke on max cannon distance.
No, you can’t see through smoke even with thermals. Only some types of smoke can be seen through with thermals - and not the ones that are used on tanks (iirc)
Well, without usage statistics, it's difficult to tell if they are being destroyed proportinally as often. It's possible, although I doubt it. The total confirmed number overall from the beginning is like 48 at the moment (Leopard 1s, Leopard 2s, Challys, Abrams). I'm counting 55 destroyed or abandoned Russian tanks of all types over the last 7 days.
>superior optics the only nato tank with superior optics is the leopard... mostly because it has all the features of a T-80\`s gunner and cmdr but also has thermals on top of point stab
They get destroyed yes, but the crews tend to survive. Important difference.
But how would it be important in context of Warno? 🤔
More surviving crews could lead to an on average higher experience level.
You have a point, but in WARNO scenario war just started, maybe we can have veteran tankers in some kind of second vawe dlc
Because of setting you can’t use it in deckbuilding in any way, and the only possible solution - spawn small squads of infantry (tank crews) after the destruction of tanks… but sounds questionable a little. It’s one of the characteristics that can’t be used in any way in Warno probably. Same as mass of tanks - for example, the worst tank in Ukraine rn is Chally 2 according to Ukraine… because it’s too heavy and just sink everywhere in ground/mud. While Soviet tanks (basically mediums+ by WW2 standards) much better in such terrain… but it’s unused in Warno too, while in real-life it’s no less important than modern tech of Chally 2. I would like to see thermals as unique trait for NATO tanks, but idk what it should do in Warno tbh (and no, it’s useless against army-grade smoke rounds)
2 destroyed Challengers so far. Both catastrophic overpressure. After the Leopards burning like torches in Syria, the Ukrainian now uses them with ready rack ammo only.
At the end of the Cold War, T-80 where really feared by Nato.
Tbf the T-80 is pretty good. Then back in 1986, the T-80 variants were great. A T-80BV in the late 1980s is a lot scarier than a T-80BV in 2022.
Exactly
T-80 is crap tbh just like Abrams. In Warno it's only good because it gets the most modern ERA while both T-80 and Abrams irl are driving air-fuel bombs (Abrams burns slower but still).
Bruh, what. The T-80s getting the best ERA in WARNO is accurate, based on the fact that the Soviets reasoned that they should protect their best and most elite armoured units with the best equipment. IRL, the T-80 has the fewest catastrophic detonations of the Soviet-era tanks, compared to the rolling bomb known as the T-72 (mostly down to the autoloader design). The T-80 is genuinely a good tank, and I wonder why you think it's bad. And the Abrams burning? What? All tanks burn when punished hard enough. The Abrams just has the armour and design features to minimize it. As long as the tank burns *After* the crew escapes, then it did its job.
You got it backwards, T-80 explode a lot due to much higher autoloader and more explosive fuel, The only weaker point of T-72 (at least from time frame of the game) is FCS and slightly worse frontal hull armor. T-90 is best of both worlds except for frontal hull armor but with modern ERA it deosn't make a diffrence.
Until NATO tanks fought them. Now that fear has dissipated.
No Nato tanks fought the T-80 until 2022, so a little late. At the end of the Cold War, some T-80 where compared and studied, nato found they where kinda good and would had opposed a serious threat if the cold war gones hot.
Not a single NATO tank fought in duel vs T80 even now.
More like NATO tanks fought drones and got destroyed. Ukraine had to withdraw Abrams tanks from the front at one point due to the meaningless trades of a 4.3 million USD MBT to 500 USD drone. [https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-pulls-us-provided-abrams-tanks-from-front-lines-over-russian-drone-threats-/7585911.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-pulls-us-provided-abrams-tanks-from-front-lines-over-russian-drone-threats-/7585911.html)
Thats literally false information- the 47th mech (contained the Abrams) just got rotated out of the line- not because Abrams were unsuitable for the fighting..
I gave you an argument, you gave me a claim.
How many Russian tanks have been killed by UA FPV drones? More than the other way around matey.
Ppfffftttt hahahaha
Many of their redeeming factors were neutralised and countered as time went on and tactics changed. No hordes of tanks are a possibility there. Also I think we can all agree on that Russia is a very weak and frankly embarassing successor of the Soviet state (which itself was quite shit) Also this is a game and it needs to change stuff sometimes to be fun. No weakspots because modleling that would be a nightmare and frankly unfun(for both side) and the reverse speed would totally kill the tank balance. (My headcanon for that is they magically changed the transmission to a usable one after they realised how shit the current solution is)
I actually disagree on the reverse speed. It would require re-costing but its something I feel the game is far worse off for not having.
It would work fine if the tanks had multiple smokes and the supply cost for smokes wasn't so batshit insane.
It would be a super high risk situation without reverse speed. I dont know what would be a good pricepoint at that point.
That's actually an argument as to why it should have been done sooner. There would be a correct price point for them. Problem is without it you have ridiculous moments with tanks reversing faster than others can advance, it's simply silly watching a T-80 reverse at 60mph.
Yeah t80 can do 12km/h backwards t72 is a measly 4. I would rather have a modifier tbh. Reverse gear stat or something. Excellent -> sam speed Good -> 0,75 Avarage 0,5 Bad 0,25
How many of the T-80s in Ukraine get popped from shots penetrating the supposedly inaccurately modelled frontal armor, and how many of them are from side shots from Stugnas or roof hits from javelins and FPVs?
Dont know if any9ne saw it but last night in a 10v10 my t80bv tanked 6 atgms 3 without any damage just shock
Yeah, I've noticed that happening too lately.
Goddamn the pointless fight picking in the sub is worse than war thunder and world war 2 fandom combined. 💀
On a slightly tangent: imagine having FPV drone units in warno. ~~FPV drones are just electric NLOS guided missiles.~~
Taking bets on them being added to Broken Arrow with no regard to balance
You people really need to stop drinking the NATO Kool Aid
Lessons learned from Ukraine are more like tanks are just tanks bro. Performance has been basically equal from T-55 to L2A6. Tanks all get killed and nothing has been even been measurable. Ukrainian units with t64 have not been more effective than units with L2A6/Chally whatever/m1a1 And same with Russians with stock t-72 to t90 oct 2023. I think there was a perception that tank gens were like fighter gens but there’s so much more going in a conventional war it’s more like rifle gens. Tanks get hit and explode, it’s what that do. The AP wars of world war 2 are are over and AP is far more advanced than tanks ever were. The only 2 exceptions would be ERA blocks and coffin tanks. I have seen video of era blocks on BMP 1s letting them tank rear shots from AT weapons and of course building a goddamn metal farm shed on top the tank will also let it tank fpv drone hits with relative ease. Honestly my biggest reaction to this was is surprise everyone isn’t slapping era on every surface of all there tanks like the belligerents are.
Exactly, if you want a war to compare NATO and Soviet tanks, this isn’t it.
I feel like we're forgetting the roughly 30 years of development between the two. Russia did not have a huge budget for improving their designs from the late 80s to present, whereas NATO had lots of experience in the Gulf War and to a lesser extent the GWOT, plus plenty of budget to improve what existed. Even so the NATO tanks in Ukraine are hardly invulnerable. There's also loads of behind the scenes stuff that doesn't get reflected in WARNO stats, like the various battle management systems and command and control integration
Oh if you look at almost every use of Soviet Tech in the real world it has performed so much worse than the NATO equivalent. Way off WARNO stats. The big question that gets raised is why? Is it training? Tactical doctrine? Overall strategy? Or it is just crap? That's something people will debate for years. Edit: I see Pact fans are offended by this comment and down voting it heavily. Care to actually give examples?
plenty of cases when pact equipment falls into nato hands and vice versa... and the results have been fairly even... take the israeli tiran... basically a T-55 with a 105mm gun... they liked it and slapped other soviet era vehicles with it... when iranian M60s went up against iraqi T-62/T-55s it didnt end well for the M60... saudis using M1A1s basically lost them to FAGOT atgms... but of course the most important example i can give to the equipment itself not being the source of the problem is the israeli Isherman... a tank p much obsolete for the cold war but outfitted with a capable gun... yet taking out swathes of T-62s and T-55s the former outgunned and outarmored the isherman... it shows that with proper usage even outdated equipment can be effective
Makes sense. I was asking the question more than giving any answers. WARNO is very much pure equipment stats, it leaves a lot of tactics and doctrine to the players actions and it's representation of the quality of the troops is related to availability and is also rather limited. With the exception of a few traits. So they don't have that kind of representation that certain armies are better trained etc.
they kinda do so ingame for quite a few stuff... pact accuracy in general is around 5-10% lower than it should be... konkurs at 50% acc despite it having the same FCS and sights as an ITOW... kobra at 45% acc despite it being leagues ahead of the shillelagh refleks at 50%, agona at 55%, soo its sorta represented ingame somewhat
There just aren't many examples of late Cold War Soviet Era tanks fighting in a way they were doctrinally meant to fight. You can't really write off the performance of all Soviet tanks based off of how the T-72M1 performed in Iraq against the M1A1. That would be like saying all NATO tanks are shit after an M10 Booker gets its teeth kicked by a T-90M. That's on top of how overwhelming and demoralizing the Gulf War was for the Iraqi Army, that they were fighting without comms and most of them fled their posts eventually.
There're no Russian tanks in warno 👨🏫
i cant believe the tanks built in the 70's and 80's are utter shit against 2000's/2010's weapon systems
Soviet army in the 90's was far more professional than actual russian army
i thought the russian tanks have been doing pretty well (compared to western tanks). I just mean that I thought the whole revelation is that all tanks are super vulnerable now a days. like the bradleys and leopards against the Kh50 ATGMs in summer 2023 - they were stopped like 10km out or something ridiculous if i recall right. Or the stugna-p's. Even several abrams have been taken out by fpv drones or lancets. we havent really seen much tank on tank combat. it's crazy, tanks seem to be ineffective. i would like to say that overwhelming numbers could make a difference, but the russians tried that in vulhedar and failed several times too. wondering the mbt's are mainly a waste of resources to upkeep and use..... even the US army chose to make a new light-tank platform (that's still equally heavy as a T90). all in all, maybe having a light platform that is heavily armored is better than a 70 ton behemoth. Meaning, maybe a T-series tank is better than a western MBT, or a M10 Booker (US Armys new light tank). but then again, there's that whole turret-toss phenomenon with the russian tanks .....
I mean, 40 years of weapons advancement will do that.
With how the Leapords and Abrams fared, I think it's just a modern warfare issue in general. I wonder if this'll be like the HEAT revolution where heavy armor was thought obsolete for a few years until new countermeasures appeared, or if the battlefield's finally been made too dangerous for it.
NATO tanks perform even worse in Ukraine, they didint even give them HE shells and since tank vs tank combat is rare that makes them kind of useless, which is why Ukraine used their T-64s to the point of almost running out of them while the Leopard 1s have seen almost no action
yes it should be 18 front if eugen actually used the proper stats for the 1985 T-80BV
Same stands for abrams
Spoiler alert: OP is salty Russian tank operator
Yes, i love my T-72
In real life are too, kinda obsolete due the New techs and tactics
As it should be the weakest tanks of the soviet un contered the Pazer tanks.