USSR Armored Forced in 1970's

[Xingbake]

http://top81.qzwww.com/upfile/20042142143330.jpg

[Uninen]

:) Well they had plenty more also.. btw, do you have any clue at where was this photo(s) taken? :)

[Xingbake]

:) Well they had plenty more also.. btw, do you have any clue at where was this photo(s) taken? :)Somewhere in Russia :roll:

[Uninen]

:) Well they had plenty more also.. btw, do you have any clue at where was this photo(s) taken? :)Somewhere in Russia :roll:

Thanks! ;)

[UoUo]

I heard ince that USSr held much more thanks then USA and Nato at that time....anyine have info how much thanks?

[Uninen]

30 000+ or even much more than that.. even T-72s have been build in exces of 50 000.. :) Or so have i read.. but i kinda doubt it.. anyhow.. since 1945, they have build hundreds of thousands of MBTs alone.. nato had some thing like 3000-5000 at any single time.. i think..

[-Max2-]

In the 80s, 20.000 tanks for NATO and 47.000 tanks for the Warsaw Pact...

[UoUo]

Holy ****.....

p-)

[MolliG]

I heard ince that USSr held much more thanks then USA and Nato at that time....anyine have info how much thanks?

Around 1981 the Warsaw Pact had around 26,200 (not including substantial reserves) MBTs. NATO (not including 2,500 reserves) had around 11,000.

But remember whilst most of the NATO MBTs were 'modern' (Leopards, AMXs, M60s, Chieftains et cetera), the WP's were quite a mixture. For example at the end of the Cold War the T-55 made up 38% of Soviet tank stocks, and the T-62 24%. And look how they fared against Israeli MBTs in the Yom Kippur War, just imagine what a 'modern' (fully upgraded) AMX or Chieftain could do.

Quote Isreali tank commander in 1973, Lieutenant-Colonel Avigdor Kahalani;

This newest ghost in the Soviet-Syrian arsenal was as destroyable as the T-54 and T-55 which proceded it.

:)

[Uninen]

Some actual source would be nice, so that we wouldnt have to remember what we remember from 1980s propaganda.. ;) Does anybody have anything? :)

[LeMat]

30 000+ or even much more than that.. even T-72s have been build in exces of 50 000.. :) Or so have i read.. but i kinda doubt it.. anyhow.. since 1945, they have build hundreds of thousands of MBTs alone.. nato had some thing like 3000-5000 at any single time.. i think..

Add to this number armies of other Warsaw Pact countries - Poland (about 5000 tanks), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.
I`ve read that Warsaw Pact could move into the battle about 50000-55000 tanks!!

[MolliG]

My figures come from The Encyclopedia Of Tanks And Armoured Vehicles (Pub. 2002, ISBN 1-86227-188-7) and East vs. West. The Balance Of Military Power (Pub. 1981, ISBN 0 86101 100 7).

[GazB]

The biggest problems with counting tanks during the cold war was the the west liked to be inferior... it justified larger defence budgets.

Often every single tank in all the warsaw pact forces were counted... including the Soviet tanks that could never get to the front line and would never be sent in the first place. Including those that would remain where they were and those that would face the Chinese if necessary. Equally it was mobilisable tanks in NATO that were counted... ie not counting netural countries, or tanks used for home defence. Often the French tanks weren't included either, and nor were American tanks in America... even although the time needed to get them to Europe would be comparable to third line Warsaw Pact and Soviet units.

There was rough parity. Numbers sometimes slightly favouring the Soviets.

Remember the quality difference can be overrated. Remember that the Israelis also used T-55s and T-62s and they were quite effective in their hands against the arabs too. To blame the quality of the weapons on Israeli superiority is to ignore the Ability of the Israelis.
Equally the west cannot guarantee airsuperiority the way the Israelis could.

Remember that during the cold war the primary Beyond visual range AAM in the west was Sparrow which had a rather poor performance record. the Within visual range missile being the sidewinder being quite inferior to the archer.
The Soviet tanks would also have the advantage of numbers in attack in that they could concentrate their forces. They also had little surprises, like tank gun launched ATGMs.

They also had more ATGMs and SAMs than all the west put together twice.

I really don't think you could assume the west would have won easily.

Equally I can't think of a situation where the Soviets might have started WWIII. Both sides were very careful to avoid such a thing. Fortunately when there was an idiot in Moscow there was a cool head in the Whitehouse and vice versa. We are so lucky an idiot wasn't in power in Moscow when Reagan was in office.