Jump to content

M2 Bradley series


Scrapper_511

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now, which solution was more efficient?

I am well read on the reasoning behind all the lines of Soviet tanks in production. This "reasoning" would only be possible when the state owns the means of production, ie Communism. This reasoning would only be tolerated in a place like the former USSR.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, five MBT models in four decades, for a nation the size of a continent. Compare that with the plethora of tank models in European production during the same period. Leo 1 and AMX-30, Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, Leopard 2, add to that M47, M48, M60 and M1 if you will. That's twice as many tank models in the same period.

Now, which solution was more efficient?

When you look at the countries that composed NATO, and those of the Warsaw Pact, one key factor emerges. Most NATO countries had strong economic, and industrial bases. And the ability to design, and build there own indigenous tank forces. And thus spread the economic burden(reward) of arms production amongst them selves.

This was not the case with the Warsaw Pact countries. Most of which were devastated by the "Great Patriotic War", or "The Great Annexation". Some never the capability to begin with.

There is also the fact that arms were the only thing the Soviet's made that anyone else wanted. So, they became the worlds great arms dealer to anyone and everyone. A much need source of capital for a nation who foresaw it's own economic collapse as early as the late 70's.

I'm preaching to the choir, many here have forgot more than I'll ever know on this subject.

Still, I don't agree with the grouping of all of the NATO tank designs as a comparison for the sake of this argument. A better comparison would be US-Soviet tank designs over the same period.

As far as "which solution was more efficient?", the Russians went into Georgia in 2008 with T-55's. I say our way was more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say our way was more efficient.

Of course Capitalism is boss! The point I was making is why no snooty Soviet docu drama on the abortion that was producing 3 front line MBT's at the same with time? Oh that's right the film makers were all sent to Siberia. Anyways getting back to the funny little HBO movie about the Bradley. There were some rather comical parts in the movie but lets face it, its fiction.

Here is the real question.

Its 1985, do want to be Boris from Belarus in a BMP or Johnny from Kansas in a Bradley?

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both T-64 and T-80 were intended for first line Soviet units only, and never to be given to client states.

Not true, T-80 or T-80B was tested in Poland and was considered for licence production, T-72 was choosen because it was simpler and cheaper.

Now, five MBT models in four decades, for a nation the size of a continent. Compare that with the plethora of tank models in European production during the same period. Leo 1 and AMX-30, Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, Leopard 2, add to that M47, M48, M60 and M1 if you will. That's twice as many tank models in the same period.

Now, which solution was more efficient?

Western. West manufactured one tank model of certain generation/capabilities where soviets made in late 60-80's 3 types of MBT's with more or less same capabilities (at least in theory).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, I don't agree with the grouping of all of the NATO tank designs as a comparison for the sake of this argument. A better comparison would be US-Soviet tank designs over the same period.

I understand what you are saying. I do not think the other Warsaw Pact countries really had a vote to build their own MBTs. They were more or less forced to use the Soviet designs. However, if the balloon went up, NATO would be battling them. Therefore I believe you have to include all of NATO’s designs in the comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that just saying "Ooo, they were building four different tank lines simultaneously" obscures more than it reveals about the realities of Soviet communism. Yes, it wasn't terribly efficient (just like the Bradley development process could have been streamlined, or, uh, let me think ... about any major US weapon system development program since the 1990s).

They were trying to keep competition going even when the proposed solutions from the different tank design bureaus were similar in capability (not the least because the operational and tactical requirements of the Soviet Army were somewhat restrictive and one-dimensional). The similarity of capabilities says more about the technological limitations that the Soviet arms development had, be it material sciences or computerization/micro electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were trying to keep competition going even when the proposed solutions from the different tank design bureaus were similar in capability

I could go on about the Motovolika Factory No. 172, or the Kharkov Malyshev plant or the Uralvagon plant. Or even debate the merits of the turbine powered Obiekt 225 verses the diesel power of the Obiekt 226. I would suggest however, that it wasn't so much competition but rather keeping the monstrous bureaucracy of the three design bureaus going at ounce. You know lots of happy workers making three similiar tanks and all making the exact same amount of rubles, whether or not the tank was cheaper or better than the other.

But you know Hollywood they think an embellished fantasy about the Bradley’s development and the Military Industrial Complex more interesting than what our Cold War nemesis was up to.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Comanche, LCS, FCS, F-35B, Presidential helicopter, ... these and many more projects all failed or are ailing from the very same pattern that emerged with the Bradley - the desire to create a revolutionary new system with unheard-of capabilities, hence a reliance on yet to-be-developed new technologies (and the associated risk to budget and development time). and a customer without sense for discipline to change specs throughout the entire development time with the associated cost overruns.

These and other programs were epic management failures and wasted more money than the Soviets with their rotten system ever could have. The saving grace for the West is that the rest of the economy is so much more powerful that, for some time, this ginormous, careless waste of taxpayer money could be absorbed where the ailing Soviet eceonomy would long have collapsed.

...and, as a finishing remark, sniping at an excessive Soviet bureaucracy from the walls of Pentagon Castle is rather ironic. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and, as a finishing remark, sniping at an excessive Soviet bureaucracy from the walls of Pentagon Castle is rather ironic. ;)

OK Ssnake this is getting too political and I think we are taking sides so you argue the merits of Soviet Style Communism and I will argue the merits of American Style Democracy and Capitalism (Pre-Obama) of course:redface:

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
OK Ssnake this is getting too political and I think we are taking sides so you argue the merits of Soviet Style Communism and I will argue the merits of American Style Democracy and Capitalism (Pre-Obama) of course:redface:

Pete

Oh lighten up. There were plenty of bureaucracy laden boondoggle programs from both the Pentagon and the Kremlin throughout the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Ssnake this is getting too political and I think we are taking sides so you argue the merits of Soviet Style Communism and I will argue the merits of American Style Democracy and Capitalism (Pre-Obama) of course:redface:

Pete

I don't think he is defending it, merely - as with most things in life - there is always more to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lighten up. There were plenty of bureaucracy laden boondoggle programs from both the Pentagon and the Kremlin throughout the Cold War.

It always amazes how fast some run to defend Soviet reasoning and to throw the Pentagon into the same ring as the Kremlin. Let's be clear, there is no comparison, and to even suggest that the Pentagon’s failures rise to the level of those of the Kremlin is intellectually lazy.

Remember this discussion started over a work of fiction that embellished a fantasy regarding the alleged comical development of the Bradley. I simply suggested that we look at some examples of the Soviet way of developing weapons before we give some weight to an HBO film.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300px-M247_DIVAD.JPEG

sergeant york. the pinnacle of Pentagon procurement failures.

A procurement failure, I suppose the US ARMY failed to get the York, probably because it didn't work. If the ARMY would have procured the York, it would have been a development failure. Why they ever planned to put this on an M48 hull is still pretty silly to me.

SPAAGs were not an ARMY priority. The reason it was not, is because of Air Superiority/Supremacy and a plethora of tested and effective SAM’s.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It always amazes how fast some run to defend Soviet reasoning

...because they are so easy targets for commie bashing (nothing wrong with that, in principle). Yet not everything they did differently was utterly crazy, and quite some of the purported stores are plain propaganda.

Examples: The T-72 is said to be cramped. Yet the loader's and commander's position almost down to the centimeter offer a similar amount of space as the Leopard 2. In fact, the turret ring diameter is slightly bigger than that of the Leo 2. What is cramped is the driver's position - yes... but what usually falls conveniently under the table is the fact that the Soviet Army drew from a huge pool of conscripts and could afford to pick from the shortest 5% quartile of all recruits to shove them into the driver's place. All of a sudden some of those puzzling design decisions actually makes sense.

That T-64's arm-eating autoloader is a frequently told story, yet an urban myth. Yes, there were a few accidents with early models, and yes, the BMP-1's autoloader is hazardous, but that's a different design and the T-64's, T-72's and T-80's later autoloaders were generally safe to operate and pretty reliable.

Finally, looking at absolute figures I am pretty certain that the Pentagon wasted more money on abortive development programs than the ever Soviets could. It's just that the Soviet economy was in a much more woeful state so that their system inefficiencies ruined them much faster. Western arms procurement isn't a complete success story either. Yes, a few things turned out to be really good designs, but I wonder if this is just like a broken clock being right twice a day, or necessary exploration of things that don't work to yield in the process of elimination a few things that are actually balanced and rounded designs.

I'm not defending Soviet communism. In fact, I hate it ... but there are different, better reasons to hate that system than - of all the things that were broken and morally corrupt - the fact that they produced four tank models simultaneously at some time.

Notice also that I actually defended the Bradley program here in this thread. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet not everything they did differently was utterly crazy

Agreed. Because of SB Pro PE, I have a more robust admiration of Soviet AFV's. Only at a simulation level could I really experience actually getting smoked in my M1A1 (HA) by a T-72 or a BMP. I have read most of the accounts of the Abrams in combat with Soviet tanks but it was always in the desert against a poorly trained opponent. We all know the results of Desert Storm and OIF.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...