Russia to lower number of tanks to 1/10th of 2005 size - Polidicks

scrap metal!

[QUOTE=SneakySneak;15943565]scrap metal![/QUOTE] arent russian tanks made of wood or something lol

Holy shit, they're gonna have some tiny tanks.

[QUOTE=Garion;15941179]Sorry, the USA is the only country with weapons capable to defeat tanks which cost $143358.03 for one launcher and $86014.80 for one missile tank you come again[/QUOTE] Versus the cost for a tank (which range in the millions for a modern MBT), it isn't so bad.

[QUOTE=Omali;15940312]I can see that. Russia needed those 20,000 tanks because, should all out war actually happen, 18,000 of them would be sacrificed for the old Russian strategy of "suffocate our enemies underneath our legions of dead soldiers"[/QUOTE] You know that they stopped doing that after WWI, right? If you've seen any footage of WWII Soviets charging like retards into MG fire, it was probably a penal battalion, which were literally cannon fodder.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;15920673]Not even the United States would do this, why would Russia?[/QUOTE] They're poor?

I guess they don't need to have that many tanks in modern times.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;15943609]arent russian tanks made of wood or something lol[/QUOTE] Why is it that everyone thinks the majority of the Russian tanks being used suck or are ancient? Alot of them are old, and some of them don't even work, but the tanks, as a design, and a, well, tank, don't suck. But even the T-72 which is the oldest tank used by the non-reserves are still relatively modern, albeit lacking space in the crew compartment and lacking any of the new protection systems seen on the T-80U and T-90, which are basically just updated T-72s. tl;dr Russia makes pretty good tanks.

Does Russia even go to war anymore? I know there's chechnya and last years south Ossetia conflict

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;15945833]They're poor?[/QUOTE] This. If they really are telling the truth, the main reason is probably that they can't afford the upkeep for all the tanks. [editline]04:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=chronochicke;15945927]Does Russia even go to war anymore? I know there's chechnya and last years south Ossetia conflict[/QUOTE] Chechnya is the big one as far as casualties and resources allocated go. That's cooling off now though.

[QUOTE=hurts;15945921]Why is it that everyone thinks the majority of the Russian tanks being used suck or are ancient?[/QUOTE] because it's true

It's not because of a lack of need, it's because they're poor dirty cunts, they're still holding onto their nukes because it's their only real defense against an attack.

That and their tremendous influence in economy.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;15945977]because it's true[/QUOTE] The ancient old part is true for a lot of them. The suck is not. I think that about 1/2 of their tank fleet was T-72s, 1/4th were T-80Us, and 1/18th or so were T-90s. They're probably just getting rid of a lot of the reserve tanks (T-62s) and alot of the T-72s, along with some of the T-80s that don't function as well.

iraq had russian tanks in the first gulf war, they got totally owned

Russian export tanks blow.

Less tanks in the world is a good thing if you ask me.

No one in thus thread has any clue on Russias economy. Russia is a rich country at this point, owning a large amount of rescources due to the size of the country. They are currently reforming their military, and raising their money input into the military by 30 percent every year, slowly rising back to their original power. They are working on new vehicle technology, and driving around in old tanks is impractical and embarrassing for the whole nation. 19500 of their current tanks arent even being used in combat, but are already in stockpiles, waiting to be discharged. Their military is well organized and well trained, with the Alfa team spetsnaz matching the united states Delta. They are discharging a large part of their officers, generals, and infantrymen at this moment, attempting to finish modernizing their army to make it mobile and completely professional. Nothing about this is strange. Russian tanks do not suck, and are considered some of the best. Not to mention Russia has always had the best tank crewman, usually being outnumbered in tank combat but often prevailing, such as the battle of Smolensk in ww2. G'night.

[quote]First and Second Chechnyan war. In the first they failed horribly due to the fact that they were used to capture cities. In the Second they performed very well because now Russia had learned its lesson and used them in a supporting role.[/quote] They havent been used against western weaponry though, and they haven't been used in tank-to-tank battle enough yet to merit if they are efficient.

All Russian export weapons are of the shittiest quality, especially those Chinese AKs. Real Russian weapons, excluding Makarovs, are top quality. 1 in every 3 Makarov pistols is actually usable, and the good ones are picked out after assembly.

About damn time, clean some space for T-95 and Black Eagles.

[QUOTE=Teh Soviet;15956487]All Russian export weapons are of the shittiest quality, especially those Chinese AKs. Real Russian weapons, excluding Makarovs, are top quality. 1 in every 3 Makarov pistols is actually usable, and the good ones are picked out after assembly.[/QUOTE] Just about everything Soviet made was horseshit quality and rugged, that's what they're known for This best puts it into context [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmIKbjpeTZw[/media]

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;15946073]iraq had russian tanks in the first gulf war, they got totally owned[/QUOTE] Because the iraqis do not know how to use them. If you gave a experienced crew a sherman, they could take out a tiger by itself.

[QUOTE=ray243;15959076]Because the iraqis do not know how to use them. If you gave a experienced crew a sherman, they could take out a tiger by itself.[/QUOTE] Unless Tiger I shoots first...

What's up with all of you surprised that Russia had 20,000 tanks? I sure as hell wasn't. [QUOTE=hurts;15945943]This. If they really are telling the truth, the main reason is probably that they can't afford the upkeep for all the tanks. [/QUOTE] That's most likely the reason.

[QUOTE=Angua;15959253]Unless Tiger I shoots first...[/QUOTE] They can always take evasive action.

Who needs tanks when you have nuclear weapons? Besides, just because they wont be in use, does not mean they cannot be used. Russia has warehouses full of old weaponry, tanks, trucks, missles, it's all stored away since the war that never happened.... and if there ever came a time when Russia had to defend it'self, it would easily do so !

[QUOTE=ray243;15959076]Because the iraqis do not know how to use them. If you gave a experienced crew a sherman, they could take out a tiger by itself.[/QUOTE] No, many in Saddams army especially during Desert Storm were veterans of the Iraq-Iran war. In 1991 during the battle of Medina (the second largest tank battle in history) a battle that lasted two hours the US 1st Armored Division destroyed 186 tanks and 127 amoured vehicals of the Iraq Republican Guard while only having 1 casualtie and 4 tanks damaged themselves. Most of the US soldiers were to young for vietnam so they themselves had no combat exsperence. While the Iran-Iraq War was only about 3 years past. When the technology is so more advanced than its counterpart to a point the exsperence of the soldier becomes null.

Cause the americans used range hax. Or probably they were unfamiliar with modern warfare.

[QUOTE=ray243;15960063]Cause the americans used range hax. Or probably they were unfamiliar with modern warfare.[/QUOTE] Iran-Iraq war was modern warfare.