23/11/2014 at 04:03 #13063SparkerParticipant
I came across an interesting article in Pravda last week. Firstly I was interested in what they boast of as their current tank strength – still lots of olden but golden T55’s in the mix:
As a result, today Russia is the absolute leader in this regard. In mid-2014, the balance of the Defense Ministry had as many as 18,177 tanks (T-90 – 400 pcs., T-72B – 7,144 pcs., T-80 – 4,744 pcs, T-64 – 4,000 pcs, T-62 – 689 pcs, and T-55 – 1200 pcs.).
Of course, only a few thousand tanks are deployed in permanent readiness units, and most of them remain at storage bases. Yet, NATO has the same picture. Therefore, the decisive superiority of Russian tanks has not gone anywhere since the times of the USSR.
Make me think that around the time of the Soviet collapse in the early 1990’s, the T55 would have made up an even greater proportion of their fleet.
So what? Well the T55 is, aesthetically, quite my most favourite Post War Soviet tank…
Hey – its Pravda – it must be true!
- This topic was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by Sparker.
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:923/11/2014 at 08:48 #13068Rod RobertsonParticipant
The article was interesting. I wonder if the European membership of NATO are going to be able to rebuild their armed forces up to Cold War levels or there abouts? It seems to me that the moribund economies of Europe coupled with a bias towards lighter kit and less armoured forces is going to leave Europe badly weakened for the foreseeable future. Only the Turks and strangely the Greeks are keeping up with their NATO commitments and spending targets and that is likely only happening because they hate and don’t trust each other. IIRC the Dutch are abandoning tanks altogether – Canada has been buying up surplus Dutch Leopard II’s. I am not sure that Europe could defend itself in a large-scale conflict with Russia even with US aid. Now add to the mix an opportunistic aggressor in Asia and some distraction in the Middle East/ Persia during a major conventional conflict in Europe and I think the US might find itself over taxed militarily too. In that case the temptation to resort to non-conventional warfare would seem to be much higher. That scares me because with such weakened conventional forces, escalation seems the only course left in a bid to frighten the enemy from continuing to attack inferior (in terms of numbers) NATO forces.
Rod Robertson23/11/2014 at 15:49 #13073Rules Junkie JimParticipant
Very interesting tank numbers quoted there – given the ancient stuff that’s turned up in Syrian and Ukrainian arms sumps in recent years it’s possible those figures are conservative!
The T-55’s a favourite of mine too. I remember taking a walk round the Imperial War Museum circa 1992 and seeing an Iraqi T-55 through the railings somewhere round the back of the building. They’d an explanatory notice on the railings detailing how this model of tank was obsolete and only really useful against similarly equipped enemy forces and insurgents. Which was probably true, but I certainly didn’t expect to see them featuring prominently in wars more than two decades later.
My only interest in modern gaming relates to imagi-nation scenarios and not-a-chance “what ifs”, but this kind of report really does provide “justification” for who has what equipment and where they got it from…23/11/2014 at 16:37 #13078John D SaltParticipant
According to Wikipedia (at least as good an OSINT surce as Pravda any day), NATO tanks strengths, for members other than the USA, are:
Nation Front line Reserve Total Belgium 0 Canada 256 256 Denmark 57 57 France 407 407 Iceland 0 Italy 197 197 Luxembourg 0 Netherlands 0 Norway 52 52 Portugal 133 86 219 UK 227 227 Greece 1244 1244 Turkey 3159 619 3778 Germany 400 1600 2000 Spain 273 54 327 Czech Republic 123 123 Hungary 30 125 155 Poland 1063 1063 Bulgaria 0 Estonia 0 Latvia 3 3 Lithuania 0 Romania 576 750 1326 Slovakia 30 30 Slovenia 28 56 84 Albania 0 Croatia 104 104 TOTAL 8362 3290 11652
That’s a good deal better tank force ratio than we had during the Cold War, and for tanks not in storage probably outnumbers the Russians handsomely. I should think it’s a better ratio than the Germans had at the start of Barbarossa, anyway.
Of course, with all the new members NATO has, Sparker can have T-55s on both sides now.
All the best,
23/11/2014 at 17:39 #13080Ivan SorensenParticipant
- This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by John D Salt.
The T55 is one of those models you should probably just buy, if you play modern gaming. It’ll show up most anywhere.
Some of them have been modernized with laser sights and whatnot too, though I don’t know how far the design can be pushed.
Nordic Weasel Games
https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse570123/11/2014 at 23:09 #13103SpuriousParticipant
Qualitatively the NATO advantage hasn’t really gone anywhere, most of those Russian tanks are going to be ’80s models without significant upgrades. And the quality of the troops, well my readings of late have not been painting a good impression of the Russian military reforms from the past decade. This makes for an interesting read: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/futuristic-visions.pdf
That and the tank force is spread across an absolutely massive amount of land so that numbers alone are not really useful without information on where the concentrations of what model are.
The T55 is one of those models you should probably just buy, if you play modern gaming. It’ll show up most anywhere. Some of them have been modernized with laser sights and whatnot too, though I don’t know how far the design can be pushed.
Surprisingly far. But it does still have the problem of being only a T-55 at the core, even if coated in ERA, composite armour, laser ranging equipment, thermal sights and uprated engines to push the extra tonnage around. Still, having a tank is better than not having a tank, and the T-55 is just one of those models that keeps on trucking apparently. I’ve been putting together some T-55AM2s for my 6mm Czechs and even as just a late ’80s upgrade they’re significantly distorted from the original design.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.