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

[Teh Soviet]

[QUOTE=Saxon;15958263]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]

Well, that's Soviet/Russian cars.

They try to make their weaponry top-quality. However, most Russian guns are meant to be durable, because Russians are all lazy fucks until their actually needed somewhere, and the design on durable weapons is to make the parts loose so the weapon doesn't clog and such. That's why when you shake an AK it will feel funny, but it's all perfectly in place, unless its Chinese design, which would be the same AK the freedom fighters in Iraq use.

[Denzo]

:ussr::respek::911:

[Traxxasred]

They're working on something.

[LordLoss]

I used to joke with my friends that Russia had more armoured vehicles than soldiers.

But anyway, by "reduce" they probably mean "shove into a massive underground bunker along with all their old toys and mosins."

[hypno-toad]

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;15946073]iraq had russian tanks in the first gulf war, they got totally owned[/QUOTE]

They got owned due to inferior training. The US training at the time was vastly superior, and the Iraqis were completely out-maneuvered. The iraqi crews were veteran, but that doesn't mean much when the American crews get put through advanced training. Essentially, the Iraqis fought in maybe 1-2 battles, but the Americans fought through 100-200 realistic virtual battles. Sure they are virtual, but when it comes down to tactics, it's all the same. The Americans were technically far more experienced.

[QUOTE=LordLoss;15964528]But anyway, by "reduce" they probably mean "shove into a massive underground bunker along with all their old toys and mosins."[/QUOTE]

You're probably right. The biggest expense of the tanks right now is the maintenance costs. But they probably will sell some.

[QUOTE=ray243;15959076]

If you gave a experienced crew a sherman, they could take out a tiger by itself.[/QUOTE]

The tiger tank was invincible to smaller tanks. The only thing that destroyed them was disabling via infantry, or air attack. it would take at least 4 shermans with a highly trained crews to take on a tiger simply because of the armor difference, and high caliber armament on the tiger.

[laserpanda]

But where will they find 1/10th scale drivers to drive them?

[Billiam]

[QUOTE=laserpanda;15968969]But where will they find 1/10th scale drivers to drive them?[/QUOTE]

China.

[OhSnap!]

Didn't Hezzys penis size also shrink 1/10 of its size since 2005? :laugh:

[Phanny]

we are hiding them underground and we will time machine them back into time and take over the world with our superior technology for the motherland