Zulfiqar MBT, Iran

[HAIDER]

In desert or plain grounds....tank is sitting ducks....only good for marshes ...

 

[kidwaibhai]

wont the tanks get stuck in marshes.

 

[EagleEyes]

In desert or plain grounds....tank is sitting ducks....only good for marshes ...

wont the tanks get stuck in marshes.

Please do give your opinion on Why it would.

Thanks.

 

[PakSniper]

russian equipment has always had the bad luck of being used by inadequately trained troops against well trained ones. Eg arabs vs israelis. this way the russian weapons get a negative reputation as being useless or inferior.

This is not true. Russian equipment is on par, or almost on par with western ones. in terms of cost effectiveness they surpass western weapons.

If iran wants good tanks, they should get Russian black eagles

One thing to know the Arab armies didn't suck, rather it was Russia and it's flawed influential doctrine of using mass and unsophisticated numbers of weaponry to fight wars, for example; one of Russia's doctrine during naval warfare was to flood the opposition with volley's of missiles "Basically, wishing it will hit". Second, their air force doctrine was to use mass numbers as well to over whelm the enemy rather relying on tactics, etc, basically going along the lines of "Bigger is better", which has been proven "Wrong".

Russian tanks, have always been of low class and unprotected heaps of junk, to supply their "Warsaw Pact" allies, if material ran out for armour, etc, they would use what ever is available to fill the orders even if it meant it stood no chance, I remember an instance where (read) they sandwiched fiberglass (not made to military specifications) between steel plates. Which brought down the protection rate of the tank crew.

Oh, If you remember in '71 you guy's used Russian missiles, they were so ineffective that IAF itself scrapped all of them, cause it failed to do it's job, that speaks volume of Russian weaponry from the horses mouth. Also, as of right now Russian supplied tanks to Arab nations are sitting under river beds making a reef for fish's, etc.

So, rather it was both Russian training, and doctrine. I could go into it deeply but their are way to many topics to ht.

PS: Russia's modern fighter-pilots lost in their own planes in Africa, etc.

 

[HAIDER]

task can be quite mobile in desert but visible sitting duck. When manpad and anti tank weapon is very common. ...Well in marshy area, it can be invisible from enemy. Can do little hide and seek. But not in desert plain. Chances of survival are more in forest or thick marshy area...We also see the effectiveness of US A10, how easily was killing tanks....call em tank killer.

 

[bhangra12345]

One thing to know the Arab armies didn't suck, rather it was Russia and it's flawed influential doctrine of using mass and unsophisticated numbers of weaponry to fight wars, for example; one of Russia's doctrine during naval warfare was to flood the opposition with volley's of missiles "Basically, wishing it will hit". Second, their air force doctrine was to use mass numbers as well to over whelm the enemy rather relying on tactics, etc, basically going along the lines of "Bigger is better", which has been proven "Wrong".

Russian tanks, have always been of low class and unprotected heaps of junk, to supply their "Warsaw Pact" allies, if material ran out for armour, etc, they would use what ever is available to fill the orders even if it meant it stood no chance, I remember an instance where (read) they sandwiched fiberglass (not made to military specifications) between steel plates. Which brought down the protection rate of the tank crew.

Oh, If you remember in '71 you guy's used Russian missiles, they were so ineffective that IAF itself scrapped all of them, cause it failed to do it's job, that speaks volume of Russian weaponry from the horses mouth. Also, as of right now Russian supplied tanks to Arab nations are sitting under river beds making a reef for fish's, etc.

So, rather it was both Russian training, and doctrine. I could go into it deeply but their are way to many topics to ht.

PS: Russia's modern fighter-pilots lost in their own planes in Africa, etc.

Simple issue, they were supposed be in a different fight. The russian doctrine and arms were developed to be fought in europe.

For example, tanks were not the main weapon of russia, it was supposed to be artillary. The role of air was to make sure that the army would not be hindered.

So it was ok for them if the tanks were second class. Now it is the duty of the user to adapt to them. Also remember quantity has a quality of its own.

P.S: I believe OOE will be the best person to take this discussing in the right way, without falling to propoganda one way or the other.

 

[PakSniper]

Simple issue, they were supposed be in a different fight. The russian doctrine and arms were developed to be fought in europe.

Your way off their I suggest you go back and read.

Russian doctrine was using quantity / but their main weapon of use to depend on was "Nuclear Weapons", which would have deep offensive strike capability in enemy territory, their main aim was to "Deter war rather than fighting it". Sokolovskii's Military Strategy focused on apocalyptic scenarios for fighting a world war with nuclear weapons and stressed the need for mass armies. Soviet theorists also advocated concentration of nuclear strikes and maneuver by troops and by nuclear missiles. While the whole time relying on "Massive Armies".

It's foolish to think they were just going to fight in Europe, cause they themselves knew about all out American support and possible involvement later on in the war. To, understand Russian doctrine you would have to read about what the Defense minister's required during the years, including generals.

Russian / Soviet Doctrine

Would be an easy guide to learn, but isn't 100% complete.

For example, tanks were not the main weapon of russia, it was supposed to be artillery. The role of air was to make sure that the army would not be hindered.

Again, your wrong, go refer to the link I have posted which outlines the basic of their strategy during conflict. It seems your just tossing out military terms, the "Tank" is part of their doctrine like other assets never did I say it was their main weapon, like you claim "Artillery, or Air", their goal was to reach nuclear parity with the West which they achieved and lessened the possibility of a conflict. In case war, happened they would do a nuclear strike, and send in a massive army to occupy the land.

So it was ok for them if the tanks were second class. Now it is the duty of the user to adapt to them. Also remember quantity has a quality of its own.

Again, its all part of their doctrine I didn't say "Tanks" were their main weapon (Read before replying), their main weapon to use were "Nukes". The user can adapt if they were thought about utilizing the full capabilities of their weapons by the suppliers, those who filled tanks with useless inner armour just to make sales, I doubt the training will be half as good as the opponent. Russian doctrine was about an all out massive invasion to over whelm the enemy, Saddam's generals (Junior officers) were taught just that on land tactics by the Russians and in air by the Russians and Indians, where West doctrine never took hold, which US were happy to know when asked about their training from a PAF officer (Even, French doctrine/ training similar to PA, PAF didn't take hold), during the first "Gulf War".

"Quantity has a quality of it's own", if it were build properly.

P.S: I believe OOE will be the best person to take this discussing in the right way, without falling to propaganda one way or the other.

I don't care if he was a Colonel or not, doesn't mean he's the crately of knowledge. Its' everyones duty to pick up some material and learn. Their's noting "Propaganda" about what I have said, rather it's a fact if you search online (Russian Doctrine) or the link above.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I have absolutely no idea where you get your jumbo-mumbo. I've stood guard at the Fulda Gap and while you are correct that nukes were part of their strategy, they were not the end all/be all of the offensive doctrines. They can't be. The very basis of maneuver warfare would deny them the targeting required. They certainly were not going to nuke us and then expect their armies just to come in and occupy us. Their armies were expecting a fight and we were going to give it to them, nukes or no nukes.

I strongly suggest you read up on their wargames and war plans. They're now available through NATO's History Projects. Look especially at 1985 onward when the Warsaw Pact abandoned all hope of crossing the Rhine and began concentrating on East Germany instead of West Germany as the main battle ground.

It appears to me you've at least ignored alot of their major developments, especially centred on the Operational Maneuver Groups which has nothing to do with nukes but a mainstay to disrupt NATO's LOCs.

Also by 1982 onwards, the idea of nukes had become somewhat obsolete. They actually have very little direct effect on the battlefield. All our nuclear targeting had moved away from maneuvering armies to fixed target sites. The meeting engagement so characterized by Soviet doctrines have become the mainstay of their operational and tactical thought. They knew full well that after 1985, we were not going to stay behind our minefields and emplacements to wait for them. We were going to come out and meet them head on.

I suggest you at least read up on the ST Battle Books. They are the most up to date operational and training manuals concerning mechanized warfare. Nukes play a very, very minor role in both books.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

One thing to know the Arab armies didn't suck, rather it was Russia and it's flawed influential doctrine of using mass and unsophisticated numbers of weaponry to fight wars, for example; one of Russia's doctrine during naval warfare was to flood the opposition with volley's of missiles "Basically, wishing it will hit". Second, their air force doctrine was to use mass numbers as well to over whelm the enemy rather relying on tactics, etc, basically going along the lines of "Bigger is better", which has been proven "Wrong".

Russian tanks, have always been of low class and unprotected heaps of junk, to supply their "Warsaw Pact" allies, if material ran out for armour, etc, they would use what ever is available to fill the orders even if it meant it stood no chance, I remember an instance where (read) they sandwiched fiberglass (not made to military specifications) between steel plates. Which brought down the protection rate of the tank crew.

Oh, If you remember in '71 you guy's used Russian missiles, they were so ineffective that IAF itself scrapped all of them, cause it failed to do it's job, that speaks volume of Russian weaponry from the horses mouth. Also, as of right now Russian supplied tanks to Arab nations are sitting under river beds making a reef for fish's, etc.

So, rather it was both Russian training, and doctrine. I could go into it deeply but their are way to many topics to ht.

PS: Russia's modern fighter-pilots lost in their own planes in Africa, etc.

What the hell is this garbage?

If the Soviets were anything like you stated, we would be speaking German right now.

1) Soviet artillery doctrines are still bleeding edge. They've done more than enough studies (I have a few in Russian) to know how many rounds you need out of how many guns to kill a target within a fixed site. Duds and all. In a 1964 study, they determined, a single battery needed a volley of 400 rounds to destroy a platoon size emplacement and that includes the 15-22% dud rate. So, no, it was NOT wishful thinking about a volley salvo. They knew exactly what they were doing.

2) Russian tanks were also built by their allies for their own usage. So, the junk argument is complete garbage. The T-64 was the best tank on the planet at the time and you will not find anyone disputing that.

Take a look at any exercise involving the 1st Moscow Crack Army or the 16th Guards Army. Their motor pools were empty, meaning everyone of their vehicles were out on the exercise. Try and find that with any other corps on earth. At least 5-8% of my vehicles were always in the motor pool, exercise or no exercise. Yeah, they were real junks.

3) In 1971, early generation missiles were not exactly on par with phasers were they? Good God, man, even in Vietnam, American planes resorted to guns more often than not.

4) Russian pilots shot down Russian pilots in Ethiopia/Eritrea. So, there goes your argument.

It would appear that you're the one needing to do alot more reading.

Edit to add: When Moscow threatened to intervene in the Arab-Israeli Wars, it scared the hell enough out of Tel Avi that they accepted the 1st chance at accepting the Eygptian surrender. There are documented cabinet minutes in which the Israelis were scared crapless that Moscow was going to destroy them.

If the Israelis were not scared of the Soviet trained Eygptian Armies, they were certainly scared of real Soviet armies.

Edit to add #2: There is absolutely nothing wrong with Soviet doctrines. They work and work well. The best Soviet style unit on Earth, however, is the American 11th Armored Calvary Regiment, who is the OPFOR at the US NTC. They win far more often than they lose at the NTC.

It is Field Craft that is where we have a superiority over them but in any war lasting over 6 months, that Field Craft expertise would be balanced out by battle experience and the lost of casualties.

 

[orhun]

İt doesn't war with abrams

 

[hardtarget]

good tank but now world made latest features

 

[Old School]

Crew safety is a very important factor. How does it perform on this regard ? How resistant it is to armour penetration by most modern anti tank guided missiles ?

 

[hardtarget]

they r gona make some new stuf