It has an LOS pen of 700mm at 2000m in game, so not by much.
Not gonna lie mate, they had enough advantages to put the fear of god into the west for enough time.
I’m well aware of the many, many flews the USSR had but to act as if they weren’t ahuge threat both technologically and capability wise is pretty silly.
1 Like
Ofc they were a threat. They were a nuclear armed superpower after all. But thats not what he was claiming. He claimed that it took the fall of the union for the west to overtake the USSR/russia which is already wrong since the USSR overall lacked behind the west and the second part with russia “catching up” recently is similarly untrue.
1 Like
People will read about perestrojka and its background in textbooks and then look you straight in the eye and say USSR never had any sort of economical issues
3 Likes
not on the L/44 that the ariete has
edit: the L/55 doesn’t even have that much pen what are they doing lmao, it should have about that much but ig not lol
Russia vs the world super power that is Ukraine…
1 Like
So you don’t understand what LOS pen is, got it. And this is why you think it should be able to penetrate the 90M’s UFP.
1 Like
@diverzant
None, zero, of the top APFSDS rounds under-perform in-game to a notable amount.
If you think 700mm of penetration at 2000 meters range from L/55 is severely under-performing, I have a bridge to sell you.
BTW, check the statcard’s 60 degree stat, and multiply by 2. Or / cos 60.
lol
To say the USSR invented nothing would be wrong, but they were technologically backward in many areas, especially electronics. The gap started in 1947 when Bell Labs invented the transistor. The USSR was very good at building vacuum tubes, but the transition to semiconductors was slower.
By the early 1960s, integrated circuits were already appearing in the West, while Soviet electronics still relied heavily on discrete germanium transistors and only began developing their own ICs in the mid-1960s. By the 1970s, with the arrival of microprocessors, the USSR was already well behind and often resorted to reverse-engineering Western chips.
Here’s an already extensive yet incomplete list of Western techs:
Spoiler
Civilian
transistor (Bell Labs, 1947)
integrated circuit (Jack Kilby / Texas Instruments, 1958)
microprocessor (Intel 4004, 1971)
Internet / ARPANET (DARPA, 1969)
UNIX (AT&T Bell Labs, 1969)
personal computer (Altair 8800 / MITS, 1975)
GUI (Xerox PARC, 1973)
fiber-optic communications (Corning, USA, 1970)
laser (Theodore Maiman / USA, 1960)
semiconductor lithography / mass silicon fabs (Texas Instruments / USA, 1958)
CNC machining / industrial robotics (MIT Servo / USA, 1952 first demo)
MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) (Damadian / USA, 1977 first full scan)
recombinant DNA / genetic engineering (Cohen & Boyer / USA, 1973)
PCR (Kary Mullis / USA, 1983)
modern microelectronics / VLSI chips (Intel, USA, 1970s)
carbon-fiber composites (Union Carbide / USA, 1963)
Ground
First Surface-to-Air Missile (Nike Ajax / USA, 1953)
First Night Vision(M1/M1A1 Sniperscope / USA, 1944)
First Thermal sight(US Army / Late 70s)
First laser-guided artillery round (M712 Copperhead / USA, early 1970s)
Kevlar (DuPont, USA, 1965)
Air/Space
First production helicopter ( R-4 / USA, 1942)
GPS (U.S. DoD, 1978 first satellite launch)
Jet engine (Frank Whittle / UK, 1937 first run)
First Sweep-wing aircraft (F-111 / USA, 1964 first flight)
high-bypass turbofan (Pratt & Whitney JT3D, 1958)
Pulse Doppler radar (MIT Lincoln Lab / USA, 1950s)
Fly-by-wire (F-16 / USA, 1976 first operational)
satellite communications (Telstar / USA, 1962)
precision-guided air munitions (AGM-62 / USA, 1967)
stealth technology (F-117 / USA, 1981 first flight)
Naval
nuclear-powered submarine (USS Nautilus / USA, 1954)
Tear drop shape submarine (USS Albacore / USA, 1953)
nuclear-powered surface ship (USS Long Beach / USA, 1961)
First naval SAM (Sea Slug / UK, 1961)
SLBM (Polaris/ USA, 1960)
The West invented and industrialized so much of the foundational technologies that shaped the world of today that it’s not even a fair competition.
1 Like
Funny how you assume insantly just due to your ignorance where I am from, yet completely disregarding the fact that people can be bilingual just by living in Europe and actually be educated.
F117 is a mathematical equation from a Russian guy Pyotr Ufimtsev from the 50s.
I am not gonna play top trumps with you here like an impetuous child of who invented what. Enjoy your bubble.
Btw I was reffering to the tank technology, not every single thing since this is sort of a topic about tanks and we are talking about tanks not SLBMs are we?
Theres a single enemy the mighty USSR couldnt beat - economy textbook.
4 Likes
True, still considering them primal and underdeveloped only because they didnt go hand in hand with microcomputing with the US is very wrong. Theoretical science, aerospace and heavy engineering were the strong sides of them…regarding tanks sloped armor, composite armor, smoothbore gun, APFSDS, autoloader, ERA, APS, gas turbine tank, guided tank fired missiles iirc.
Their main issue always was and still is “thats good enough”
1 Like
Saying that the USSR pioneered stealth aviation, because of Ufimtsev is like saying the british pioneered rocketry, because of Newton
No one is considering them primal and underdeveloped but saying that there ever was a general developmental gap in favor of the USSR is just cope. Some parts? Sure.
Thats exactly what I am saying…in some areas one or the other was better.
Not really but okay, dig more into it and you will see for yourself. It was disregarded in the USSR because of the reason I mentioned earlier and the general thinking that it cant be done
LMAO, most of that was not made by the USSR first.
Sloped armor is the French FT–17, and then later French tanks introducing even more advanced design of it like the Somua S-35 or B1 Bis
First true composite armor is the US T95 medium tank. The US simply didn’t put it in service because of cost and instead chose the cheaper M60 Patton because number was better than quality at the time for them. The USSR encountered that exact problem with the limited in number T-64A.
First autoloader is French AMX-13
First tank barrel guided missile is the US MGM-51 Shillelagh out of the Sheridan and M60A2.
First truly functional ERA is a german scientist making it for Israel.
While the 1976 T-80 is the first tank with a turbine engine as its main powerpack, the Strv-103 had a turbine secondary engine long before it. Also, by 1978, the XM-1 also had a turbine engine.
Smoothbore, APFSDS, and APS, these are undoubtedly Soviet advancements. Especially APS was really advanced for its time.
But its not “in some areas one or the other was better” its "in some specific areas the other was better and in quite literally everything else the other was miles ahead.
And? Making stealth aviation work is more than just the mathematic principles behind it. Saying that the F117 goes to the credit of the USSR is pretty much like saying the Saturn V is Newtons doing.
Well actually thats exactly what it is in both cases. The basis for ANY industrial execution comes from theoretical discovery. Thats how engineering works actually by heavily relying on applied science. Saying that intelectual/theoretical discovery is less important than the industrial execution is oblivious.
T-34 standardized it as a philosophy of protecting the tank
So basically T64A was the first standardized composite armor tank.
completely different philosophy and design but okay. On that matter the US was the very first in 1945 with a T22E1 or something like that
Forgot this even existed…
The irony… On the other hand Kontakt 5 was the first one to combat darts
In that sense Ferdinand was the first electric tank even though it had 2 engines. T-80 is the first solely turbine engine driven
Im not saying that tho. Im saying that laying the mathematical foundation and doing the actual invention are 2 separate things. Otherwise Sputnik 1 would be a british invention since putting a Sattelite into orbit is impossible without Newtons work.
1 Like
i think if russia can have ERA with 220mm protection against kinetic then nato should have anti era tipped rounds but thats just personal preference
1 Like
No. That’s the French who did it first. They pioneered the idea of using slope armor to improve tank protection 20 years before the T-34 was even a thing. In fact, check the FCM-36, they even sloped the side armor.
The T-34 is the one that comes to mind because of how many were produced and how impactful it was on the war its slope armor design was built upon a French idea.
Not, it was the same philosophy between the two. Add an autoloader to remove a crew and make the tank smaller/lighter. The French again did it first. The USSR did it later in a more mechanized manner because technology had evolved by then.
Yes, first to be put in production like that. Though as said, the technology itself was mastered before that in the US, simply not used.
Yes. On a side note, the US experimented with heavy ERA in the 90s, and patented a double action ERA 10 years before Relikt. They most likely didn’t bother installing it because it wasn’t needed and was in the process of being countered by newer shells. Why weight down your tank with protection that doesn’t work against modern ammo?