Why did the Soviets have so many different tanks for so similar purposes? Why did the west stick to one model of tanks for such a long time? Isn't many different tanks an logistical hassle?
Why did the Soviets have so many different tanks for so similar purposes...
Caleb Rogers
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
benning.army.mil
twitter.com
Luis White
communisitici i bujmop
Benjamin Lopez
The west labels something as just a new variant of the same old vehicle even if there isn't three parts to be found in the entire vehicle that hasn't been swapped out for something drastically different.
Russians change two screws, get a new batch of paint, and give the vehicle a brand new designation.
Benjamin Sullivan
>Why did the Soviets have so many different tanks for so similar purposes?
Politics and central planning.
>Why did the west stick to one model of tanks for such a long time?
Because having three mainline MBT's at the same time is a terrible idea.
>Isn't many different tanks an logistical hassle?
Absolutely, its also a lot more expensive.
Blake Gutierrez
Because Soviet politicians, military leadership and military industry leadership was filled with geriatric people that had feuds going to pre-WWII days.
Xavier Bell
I fucking hate you user for putting this shit on Jow Forums on a daily basis.
Brayden Lewis
because cccp was rich and prosperous while western world was fool of inconsistencies
Leo Ward
Do you know what that first word on the label is? I can recognize water. I presume its flavored?
Adam Williams
In simple terms, lobbying by the military industrial complex. T-64, T-72, and T-80 were all developed to fill the same MBT niche because the design bureaus behind them wanted to come up with "the design" that all the other bureaus would have to produce. The rivalries between them were severe and no one wanted to lose, so they used political allies to secure the funding and authorization to build their pet projects. The logistics burden for 3 different tanks filling the same role is highly inefficient. The American armored development was driven more by the Army itself than by politicians or the defense contractors, so it generally did not suffer this problem.
Luis Hall
If anything the Pact was the ones who had a few models. Everyone in the pact used T-72s or T-55s, with the USSR also having T-64s and T-80s.
In Nato there was the Frecnh who had a ton of their own designs, with ammunition not even beeing compatible with the rest, the Bongs who also designed their own, the US who used M60's and later M1s, Germany using Leopard 1 & 2s. Beyond that a vast quantity of older tanks was also still in use by other nations, like the M48 and M47.
Compared to the Warsaw pact, NATO logistics was a real mess.
Ayden Gonzalez
it's a famous soda machine
Joseph Hill
Instead of designating M60A1, M60A2, M60A3 etc, Russans go T-54, T-55, T-56 etc.
Xavier Hernandez
Thats not how this works. Thats not how any of this works. It applied for the T-54 and 55, and arguably for the T-72 and T-90, but nothing else.
Kayden James
incorrect
Hunter Lopez
The only difference in the basic naming convention for American and Russian tanks is the presence of a hyphen.
Asher Robinson
>T-56
No such thing.
inb4 'b-but type 56!'
Anthony Morgan
Says carbonated water. From the movies I watched as a kid, it was always a clear water that came out, so maybe flavored somehow, but it was always clear.
Ian Campbell
There was 3 flavours: Bubbles without bubbles, Empty and Polonium. Always wondered what the Polonium one tasted like, but all the people who bought it and said they will tell me later, never did. Now i think of it, i dont remember seeing them after that.
Cooper Russell
From the very little Russian I know, it says "gazirovannaya voda", so "sparkling soda".
Going by the colors on the control panel below, the dark one is a cola syrup (probably sourced from Pepsi), the yellowish one is lemon, while the white (blank?) one is plain.
Jeremiah Reed
Voda is Water user
Vodka is Strong-Water
Jaxon Sanchez
Yes, however carbonated water is commonly referred to as 'soda' in English speaking countries.
Zachary Bell
competing design bureaus
the t-72 initial production was literally named t-72 ural just to say "FUCK kharkov"
Owen Brooks
Have you seen the 50 thousand different letter and number combinations that go after T-72?
T-** is model number, following numbers and letters designate configuration and modifications.
Bentley Foster
Everyone operated two, sometimes three generations of tanks concurrently during the CW.
Colton Foster
this is a fair point
Gabriel Jenkins
You referring to it as 'sparkling soda' seems a bit redundant though. Soda is generally assumed to be sparkling.
The other user's point still stands. Boдa is water. The direct translation of the wording on the machines is 'sparkling water'.
Parker Wright
The Soviet absorbed the nazi way of doing things, and they know they can't beat the West in making planes, so....
Ayden Gutierrez
it's basically just a vending machine
only difference is you have cups there for public use
youtu.be
Luke Cook
benning.army.mil
Start on Page 21.
Long story short - Politics, underperforming vehicles and a country where the MIC is more than 40% of the economy.
Brody Morales
because the west had the nuclear blitz option.
Samuel Morris
Soviets mostly used the T-72 in the 80s
West had a shit ton of different MBTs in that time.
Your question has a flawed premise.
Owen Bell
The T-62 was an enlarged T-54 with a powerful cannon
T-64 was good, but too complex for mass production
The T-72 was a T-64 downgrade
T-80 was a tank in the future massive and with a large margin for modernization than the T-72, but the plant went bankrupt
T-90 is just a modernization of the T-72
Armata is a compromise between the secret supertanks of the 90s and the possibilities of the economy
Colton Cox
>secret supertanks of the 90s
That sad feel then Object 187 will never be in service.