Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?

[AZrailwhale]

Another one living in the land of delusion, in it's time the AK 47 was probably the best assault rifle made, not like over engineered Western junk, and in WW2 the T-34 tank annihilated the Nazis, these days they have some of the best missiles anywhere, what world do you live in? sounds like the Truman show.

The AK47 was a good assault rifle in the hands of illiterate peasants. It's inaccurate at anything beyond two hundred meters. The T-34 was a horrible tank. Bad vision, no radios, ergonomics so bad that it was more dangerous to its crews than to the Germans. Mechanically it was so bad drivers had to use a sledgehammer to shift gears. The T-34's real claim to fame is that it is the most destroyed tank in history. When T-34/85s faced M-4A3 Shermans in Korea the T-34s were slaughtered.

 

[Deadstick]

The AK47 was a good assault rifle in the hands of illiterate peasants. It's inaccurate at anything beyond two hundred meters. The T-34 was a horrible tank. Bad vision, no radios, ergonomics so bad that it was more dangerous to its crews than to the Germans. Mechanically it was so bad drivers had to use a sledgehammer to shift gears. The T-34's real claim to fame is that it is the most destroyed tank in history. When T-34/85s faced M-4A3 Shermans in Korea the T-34s were slaughtered.

Talking total bollocks again, ask the German about the T-34 all the way from Moscow to Berlin.

 

[Deadstick]

Check this out you two imperialist warmongering fools. Caitlin describes you both perfectly…all 30 apply to you two empire simps. Mushroom

Here are 30 signs you might be an empire simp:

1. You get triggered whenever anyone highlights the well-documented western provocations that paved the way to the war in Ukraine.

2. You think Putin invaded Ukraine solely because he is evil and hates freedom and the US is pouring weapons into the nation because it loves Ukrainians and wants to protect their freedom and democracy.

3. You’re more interested in Trump’s mugshot than the western-backed atrocities in Yemen or starvation sanctions in Syria.

4. You can listen to Tony Blinken talk without wanting to throw trash at his head.

5. You understand that the last time there was a credible foreign military threat near the US border the US responded so aggressively that it almost ended the world, yet you demand that Russia and China accept US military threats on their borders.

6. You think the US is filling Australia with war machinery because it loves Australians and wants to protect them from China.

7. You believe the world’s most destructive military force is encircling its #1 geopolitical rival with war machinery as a defensive measure.

8. You live in the most propagandized population on earth and make jokes about North Korean propaganda.

9. You live in the most propagandized population on earth and spend your time fretting about Russian propaganda.

10. You think the title of most murderous and tyrannical regime on earth belongs to any government besides Washington.

11. You live under the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on earth and yet spend your time shrieking about tyranny in Asian countries.

12. You want to see Vladimir Putin tried for war crimes before George W Bush.

13. You believe western interventionism has ever had anything to do with spreading freedom and democracy or protecting humanitarian interests.

14. You find protests in places like Iran, Venezuela or Cuba much more interesting than protests in places like France, Haiti or Chile.

15. You unironically call NATO a “defensive alliance”.

16. You rend your garments about China preparing to seize control of Taiwan by military force without ever acknowledging that the US empire is preparing to do the exact same thing.

17. You’ve ever believed for even one second that the US government gives a fuck about Muslims in China.

18. You oppose guns except when they’re being used to kill foreigners overseas.

19. You claim you oppose the misdeeds of all governments equally but find yourself spending most of your time yelling at people who criticize US foreign policy online.

20. You’ve ever accused anyone who criticizes US foreign policy of secretly working for Russia or China.

21. You’ve ever accused someone who criticizes Israel of being an anti-semite.

22. You think being anti-war means putting a Ukraine flag in your Twitter bio.

23. You think “the troops” have ever fought for your freedom at any time since you’ve been alive.

24. You think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people.

25. You think the destruction of Libya had anything to do with protecting Libyans.

26. You think the west arming Al Qaeda in Syria had anything to do with advancing the interests of Syrians.

27. You think US escalations against Russia and China have anything to do with “national security”.

28. You think the Department of Defense has anything to do with defense.

29. You think it’s okay for the US to keep waging wars, destroying nations, starving civilian populations with economic sanctions, instigating proxy wars, arming neo-Nazis and violent jihadists, staging coups and persecuting journalists, because if it doesn’t do those things the world might be taken over by evil tyrants.

30. You were bothered by any item on this list.
30 Signs You Might Be An Empire Simp

Outstanding post, not that the zombified herd will listen many are just too far gone.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Talking total bollocks again, ask the German about the T-34 all the way from Moscow to Berlin.

The Germans were killing T-34s with 37mm armed Panzer Mark IIIs in Barbarossa. The T-34 wasn't a good tank. Conceptionally it was great, sloped armor, big armor piercing gun, diesel engine etc. But the Soviets screwed up the execution beyond belief. Radiators that were clogged with solder so they couldn't cool the engines. Transmissions that failed within a hundred kilometers, no radios, two-man turrets where the commander was the loader, so he had no time to actually command the tank, a huge, forward opening hatch on the turret so the commander had to be exposed from the hips up to see around the hatch. The gunner had no visibility excerpt for the gun sight. Engine oil filters that didn't filter so that engines grenaded within a hundred kilometers of usage. Machine guns that were fed by small pan magazines. Periscopes that the crew couldn't see out of. Gun sights that were so poor that they were useless. Shall I go on? The Germans destroyed 44,900 T-34s during the war. The Soviets lost 83,500 tanks during the war so despite the fact that the Soviets operated far more light and heavy tanks than T-34s, HALF its losses were T-34s.

 

[Deadstick]

The Germans were killing T-34s with 37mm armed Panzer Mark IIIs in Barbarossa. The T-34 wasn't a good tank. Conceptionally it was great, sloped armor, big armor piercing gun, diesel engine etc. But the Soviets screwed up the execution beyond belief. Radiators that were clogged with solder so they couldn't cool the engines. Transmissions that failed within a hundred kilometers, no radios, two-man turrets where the commander was the loader, so he had no time to actually command the tank, a huge, forward opening hatch on the turret so the commander had to be exposed from the hips up to see around the hatch. The gunner had no visibility excerpt for the gun sight. Engine oil filters that didn't filter so that engines grenaded within a hundred kilometers of usage. Machine guns that were fed by small pan magazines. Periscopes that the crew couldn't see out of. Gun sights that were so poor that they were useless. Shall I go on? The Germans destroyed 44,900 T-34s during the war.

Well you can go on if you like but that won't change history

 

[Mushroom]

Talking total bollocks again, ask the German about the T-34 all the way from Moscow to Berlin.

That is not saying much about how good the T-34 was, but how bad the majority of German tanks were.

Yu yourself brought up the Battle of Kursk earlier. How about we start there, as it was a battle you yourself insisted was important. It was also the biggest tank battle in WWII. Where the Germans had 3,000 tanks, the Soviets had 5,000 tanks.

Now the majority of the tanks on the German side were the Panzer I, Panzer II, and Panzer III. The first two are light tanks, the last one a medium tank.

The Panzer I actually dates to 1934, and was horribly outdated when the war started and was largely relegated to screening and scouting. The same with the Panzer II, which entered service in 1936. A light tank, mostly used for screening and scouting because it had little chance against actual battle tanks. The Panzer III was the first German "Battle Tank", first seeing service in 1939 and already outdated by 1943. The Germans did have a number of Panther and Tiger tanks, but those had serious reliability issues and were largely ineffective because they had to few of them to make a difference, even when they did work as promised.

Now on the Soviet side, there were indeed a lot of T-34 tanks. However, there were just as many tanks that were sent to the Soviets from the other Allied nations. Specifically the American M3 Lee, the M10 Wolverine, and the British Archer. The Archer and M10was particularly effective, being an actual "Tank Destroyer" with a large gun specifically designed to kill tanks.

If you think the battle was won by the T-34, then obviously you know nothing about WWII or tank warfare. Are you even aware that ideally tanks were not sent out to kill tanks in that war? They were primarily infantry support, Once again, you prove you are simply talking out your arse, and I am using a specific battle you yourself brought up.

In most of those battles, it was nothing to do with the "superiority" of the T-34, but the inferiority of the German tanks. The vast majority of German tanks were really not very good, almost anybody who has looked into the history of tanks could tell you that. Most were horribly outdated interwar makes, with only a small handful of mid to late war models. And those had horrible reliability issues, more of them being captured because they simply broke down than were actually destroyed.

Oh, and how did those tanks get to the battle? Tanks do not simply drive from the factory to the battle lines and start fighting. They were taken there by rail. On predominantly American trains, sitting on American railcars.

You are the one talking bollocks, as you once again show you have almost no comprehension of anything actually military.

 

[themirrorthief]

Good response!
But it's always possible that Russia has already demonstrated weapons superiority over America.

Who will know until all limitations are discarded? America's full might have already been depleted in ammunition, excepting outlawed cluster munitions and other banned munitions? While Russia's industries are still turning out endless supplies?

Most strategists are already suggesting that Europe is not a factor that Russia should sneeze at and so America is the target if it doesn't agree to a peace that is satisfactory to Russia.

I don't really think it's a question of American losing the war though. It's really totally all about Russia's unwillingness to accept defeat.

Your comment therefore has to be more about the nuclear abilities of Russia. Could Russia destroy America and still survive? That's a question with much to be considered!
Therefore, the tantalizing question for America's war planners?

american civlians are Heavily armed making it possible to raise a million man militia in hours....russians arent allowe dot have arms....do the math

 

[Mushroom]

Conceptionally it was great, sloped armor

Here is one thing many do not even know. That "sloped armor" was almost entirely by accident and when it was implemented it had nothing to do with the intent of deflecting incoming rounds.

The Soviets were having a horrible time making heavy tank armor, and at the start of the war could only manufacture armor that was no more than 45mm thick. However, by sloping it at an angle the bias would increase the effective thickness. So when put at an angle, that 45mm armor had the effective thickness of around 72mm.

So the thing that people try to praise the most in the t-34 was an accident that was only done because of the lack of the ability of the Soviets to make armor thick enough so they improvised and got lucky. It was a cost saving measure and trying to use the only thing they could make. The same with their use of the diesel engine. It is a much simpler engine design, ultimately requiring much less in the way of electrical components than a gasoline engine (in fact it needs almost none).

The T-34 was more lucky than anything else. It really was made as cheaply as possible because they could not make anything better.

 

[Kruska]

The Germans were killing T-34s with 37mm armed Panzer Mark IIIs in Barbarossa. The T-34 wasn't a good tank.

A very incorrect statement.

During the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Panzer III was the backbone of the Wehrmacht's armored forces. They were able to quickly overcome the older Soviets models, such as the T-26 and the BT variants. The T-34 and KV tanks proved to be almost invulnerable to the German tank guns. Even the short 5 cm gun, let alone the older 3.7 cm, proved almost useless against these vehicles. This can be demonstrated in the e.g. battle report of the 3rd Panzer Division.

“ The I.Abteilung destroyed three tanks with Christie-type suspension (T-34) on 19 August 1941. Clear penetrations were achieved using PzGr 40 (HK) only at favorable angles and at ranges below 400 m, and only on weak points such as the gun mantlet or the hull sides. Binocular observation revealed that direct hits by PzGr 40 (HK) on the turret resulted in ricochets; even at ranges under 400 m. Direct fire at the tracks resulted in clear penetrations, which, however, did not stop the tank due to the width of the tracks. In one case, fire from 7.5 cm rounds resulted in the crew abandoning their undamaged vehicle, and one T-34 being disabled via a demolition charge thrown into the engine compartment…"

As such of three T-34's, only one was destroyed via a direct engagement with several Pz.III's.

Those Pz III's that knocked out T-34's were armed with the long barrel 50mm. (5 cm L/42) using the the Tungsten PzGr 40. (HK) or Pz III's armed with the 3.7 cm Kw.K. L/46.5. And HK aka Tungsten ammo was more or less a rarity for Wehrmacht tank-crews. According to a veteran known to me, who was 4 years with an anti-tank unit of the Wehrmacht in Russia - even three Pak 75's in offset positions were needed to ensure the destruction of a T-34. (unlike those movies showing a single Pak 75 blowing up a T-34 or Sherman). Luckily for the Wehrmacht, T-34's and KV-1's didn't see much significant action before Winter 1941.

BTW: At the end of 1941, the German Army groups North and Center only had 180 operational Panzer IIIs left. Another 254 were under repair.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Here is one thing many do not even know. That "sloped armor" was almost entirely by accident and when it was implemented it had nothing to do with the intent of deflecting incoming rounds.

The Soviets were having a horrible time making heavy tank armor, and at the start of the war could only manufacture armor that was no more than 45mm thick. However, by sloping it at an angle the bias would increase the effective thickness. So when put at an angle, that 45mm armor had the effective thickness of around 72mm.

So the thing that people try to praise the most in the t-34 was an accident that was only done because of the lack of the ability of the Soviets to make armor thick enough so they improvised and got lucky. It was a cost saving measure and trying to use the only thing they could make. The same with their use of the diesel engine. It is a much simpler engine design, ultimately requiring much less in the way of electrical components than a gasoline engine (in fact it needs almost none).

The T-34 was more lucky than anything else. It really was made as cheaply as possible because they could not make anything better.

The all-around sloped armor was a two-edged sword. Yes it helped deflect incoming rounds, but it also reduced internal volume significantly. The T-34 wasn't the first tank to use sloped armor, the Christie had sloped and angled armor back in the early thirties.

 

[AZrailwhale]

A very incorrect statement.

During the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Panzer III was the backbone of the Wehrmacht's armored forces. They were able to quickly overcome the older Soviets models, such as the T-26 and the BT variants. The T-34 and KV tanks proved to be almost invulnerable to the German tank guns. Even the short 5 cm gun, let alone the older 3.7 cm, proved almost useless against these vehicles. This can be demonstrated in the e.g. battle report of the 3rd Panzer Division.

As such of three T-34's, only one was destroyed via a direct engagement with several Pz.III's.

Those Pz III's that knocked out T-34's were armed with the long barrel 50mm. (5 cm L/42) using the the Tungsten PzGr 40. (HK) or Pz III's armed with the 3.7 cm Kw.K. L/46.5. And HK aka Tungsten ammo was more or less a rarity for Wehrmacht tank-crews. According to a veteran known to me, who was 4 years with an anti-tank unit of the Wehrmacht in Russia - even three Pak 75's in offset positions were needed to ensure the destruction of a T-34. (unlike those movies showing a single Pak 75 blowing up a T-34 or Sherman). Luckily for the Wehrmacht, T-34's and KV-1's didn't see much significant action before Winter 1941.

BTW: At the end of 1941, the German Army groups North and Center only had 180 operational Panzer IIIs left. Another 254 were under repair.

37mm were killing T-34s with shots other than frontal ones. The KVs were pretty much invulnerable to German anti-tank guns.

 

[Kruska]

...In most of those battles, it was nothing to do with the "superiority" of the T-34, but the inferiority of the German tanks.

That is about one of the dumbest posts I have come across at USMB so far.

Do you even realize as to how stupid and contradictory your statements is? whilst denying the superiority of a T-34 to a German Pz. 1,II, III and even a Pz.IV?

Quote from your nonsense post:
Now on the Soviet side, there were indeed a lot of T-34 tanks. However, there were just as many tanks that were sent to the Soviets from the other Allied nations. Specifically the American M3 Lee, the M10 Wolverine, and the British Archer. The Archer and M10was particularly effective, being an actual "Tank Destroyer" with a large gun specifically designed to kill tanks.

As for the M10 3inch GMC (the name "Wolverine" derives from Matchbox or Airfix).

The Red Army received 54 M10s, but their action is unrecorded, as well as the crew opinions on these. There is no doubt that the open-top turret was not appreciated in winter, and both the lack of protection and firepower did not contribute to their popularity.

M3 Lee around 1000
A4 Sherman around 4000
Valentine around 2800
Mathilda around 800
Churchill around 250

Oh and please do tell me how many archer tanks the Brits supplied to Russia.

The Soviet-union produced around 120,000 light/medium/heavy tanks during WW2 - out of which around 64,000 were T-34 variants.

You are the one talking bollocks, as you once again show you have almost no comprehension of anything actually military.

Taking your above statements into account - it becomes undoubtedly clear as to who always talks bollocks.

 

[Kruska]

37mm were killing T-34s with shots other than frontal ones. The KVs were pretty much invulnerable to German anti-tank guns.

They (37mm) were NOT killing aka destroying T-34's at all - read factual reports about the Wehrmacht in Russia from July 1941 to July 1942 - at most they managed to disable them if they happen to come across them. This doesn't exclude some lucky shot or those hitting the rear of a T-34.

There is a solid reason as to why the Wehrmacht themselves referred to he 37mm as "Panzer Anklopfgerät" (meaning knocking onto someones door). aka tank.

The vast majority of Russian tanks being destroyed by Pz. II's and III's were T-27's, BT's and thousands of armored cars. Whilst T-34's or KV types were destroyed in vast majority by Artillery and sometimes Flak (e.g. 88) and especially via man held charges (Geballte Ladung) onto disabled/non-maneuverable T-34's and KV tanks in 1941 right into mid 1942.

The Tanks that saved the Wehrmacht from certain doom in 1941/2 were StuG III's, PzIII armed with the 5cm cannon and Pz.IV's.

In its first 15 days of operation, Oberleuntnant Pelikan’s StuG unit destroyed 91 tanks and captured 23, destroyed 23 bunkers, ten armored trains and disrupted convoys, claiming hundreds of trucks.
The Abteilung 185 lost 6 StuGs in exchange for silencing or capturing 130 artillery pieces, 39 infantry guns, 34 mortars, 79 AT guns, 45 AA guns, 314 MGs, 91 tanks.
Form February to March 1942, Abteilung 185 was resupplied with better HEAT ordnance and claimed more difficult targets, 29 KV-1's, 27 T-34's and 2 KV-2's, but took eight losses.

And the unsung heroes from 1943-1945 were also the StuG's - more kills then Panthers and Tigers together.

Of the 435 Ausf Fs produced, just over 300 were armed with the same 3.7cm gun as earlier versions of the Panzer III, while 100 were built with the 5cm KwK L/42 and an external mantlet. Between August 1940 and 1942 many of the tanks originally built with the 3.7cm gun were rearmed with the 5cm gun, just as with the Ausf E.

Even reading a single and simple book such as "Unternehmen Barbarossa by Paul Carell, or "Operation Barbarossa" by Christian Hartmann or Jonathan Dimbleby will show you this.

 

[Deadstick]

A very incorrect statement.

During the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Panzer III was the backbone of the Wehrmacht's armored forces. They were able to quickly overcome the older Soviets models, such as the T-26 and the BT variants. The T-34 and KV tanks proved to be almost invulnerable to the German tank guns. Even the short 5 cm gun, let alone the older 3.7 cm, proved almost useless against these vehicles. This can be demonstrated in the e.g. battle report of the 3rd Panzer Division.

As such of three T-34's, only one was destroyed via a direct engagement with several Pz.III's.

Those Pz III's that knocked out T-34's were armed with the long barrel 50mm. (5 cm L/42) using the the Tungsten PzGr 40. (HK) or Pz III's armed with the 3.7 cm Kw.K. L/46.5. And HK aka Tungsten ammo was more or less a rarity for Wehrmacht tank-crews. According to a veteran known to me, who was 4 years with an anti-tank unit of the Wehrmacht in Russia - even three Pak 75's in offset positions were needed to ensure the destruction of a T-34. (unlike those movies showing a single Pak 75 blowing up a T-34 or Sherman). Luckily for the Wehrmacht, T-34's and KV-1's didn't see much significant action before Winter 1941.

BTW: At the end of 1941, the German Army groups North and Center only had 180 operational Panzer IIIs left. Another 254 were under repair.

I know for the most part British tanks were not up to the job, in Normandy Michael Wittman 1st SS tank commander destroyed many of our tanks, he could hit our tanks before we were even in range to return fire although we did have the Sherman firefly fitted with a 171b anti tank gun which was very good, Wittman was killed later in Normandy some ay by a Canadian regiment but others say could have been an air strike.

 

[Kruska]

I know for the most part British tanks were not up to the job, in Normandy Michael Wittman 1st SS tank commander destroyed many of our tanks, he could hit our tanks before we were even in range to return fire although we did have the Sherman firefly fitted with a 171b anti tank gun which was very good, Wittman was killed later in Normandy some ay by a Canadian regiment but others say could have been an air strike.

The British didn't really built good tanks in WW2, but had a very disciplined and well trained Armed forces. Since they could however field superior numbers and had the advantage of air-superiority plus loads of petrol - the Africa Corps at the end, didn't stand a chance.

To score devastating hits onto any allied target out of mostly concealed position with a superior gun like the 88, at greater distances, like e.g. Wittman naturally gave the Tiger it's "reputation". Since the factual produced numbers of Tiger I & II - not to mention the ones that actually managed to get into battle was rather insignificant - so was the factual impact of these tanks insignificant, Aside from some great reports describing actions by Tigers on the Eastern-Prussian front.

AFAIK either Wittman went nuts (desperation in view of the vast allied superiority - especially air superiority) or he believed in the Nazi propaganda about him and his Tiger - he abandoned the usual tactic of firing from a distant and concealed position (supposedly due to an imminent B-17 bomber raid) - and charged openly into an oncoming attack, conducted by around 20 British & Canadian Sherman's and two? Firefly's, one or both that were waiting in a concealed position.

 

[Donald H]

american civlians are Heavily armed making it possible to raise a million man militia in hours....russians arent allowe dot have arms....do the math

Americans are heavily armed and have stated clearly the reason why they need to be armed.

But when their country called on Jan. 6th., not a single American stood up with his gun to protect his country and the Constitution from the domestic threat!

Nobody can blame the guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Americans are heavily armed and have stated clearly the reason why they need to be armed.

But when their country called on Jan. 6th., not a single American stood up with his gun to protect his country and the Constitution from the domestic threat!

Nobody can blame the guns.

Being a stupid Canadian I assume you are unaware that Washington DC makes it very difficult to possess a firearm.

 

[Donald H]

Being a stupid Canadian I assume you are unaware that Washington DC makes it very difficult to possess a firearm.

I am fully aware, but the insurrectionists possessed hundreds of guns located close by.

Those who should have stood up to save their country and Constitution from a domestic enemy were not to be found when needed. Where were you sgt? Were you still oiling your guns when a patriot with a gun was finally called for?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am fully aware, but the insurrectionists possessed hundreds of guns located close by.

Those who should have stood up to save their country and Constitution from a domestic enemy were not to be found when needed. Where were you sgt? Were you still oiling your guns when a patriot with a gun was finally called for?

LOL no they did not you liar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am fully aware, but the insurrectionists possessed hundreds of guns located close by.

Those who should have stood up to save their country and Constitution from a domestic enemy were not to be found when needed. Where were you sgt? Were you still oiling your guns when a patriot with a gun was finally called for?

I am barred from owning firearms because the VA and SSA rate me as unable to handle my finances.