Affordable armoured tanks
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
T-55?
Korean Seaboy
Active member
You're kidding, right Can?
84RFK
Active member
Well, if affordable is the main subject here...OK.
You just have to think in a Soviet manner, then quantity is also a quality.
In a 1-1 battle the T-55 wouldn't stand a chance against any modern tank, but say in a 20-1 battle, even the most modern and sophisticated tank would be outnumbered and do a "Jack in the box" at last.
You just have to think in a Soviet manner, then quantity is also a quality.
In a 1-1 battle the T-55 wouldn't stand a chance against any modern tank, but say in a 20-1 battle, even the most modern and sophisticated tank would be outnumbered and do a "Jack in the box" at last.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Not kidding. It's still a tank and it's cheap.
84RFK
Active member
So cheap that anyone could buy a whole lot of them, and since few of them will manage to fire more than a round or two you can save a lot of cash otherwise invested in ammo.
lolwhassup
Active member
M60 Patton maybe? It was a very effective tank of it's time and even still today. It defeated T-55s T-62s and even T-72s. It has decent speed, good firepower, good protection, and crew survivability. It also has a pretty decent FCS though, its not on par with the Abrams.
How small?
If a small nation is looking at getting tanks, then will it also need to buy planes to ensure air superiority?
I feel like while infantry can hide in the bush and towns- and still pack a punch with modern anti-armour weapons- tanks make a real pretty target without air support and should be left to the bigger nations.
The tanks themselves would probably cost a pittance compared to their support, maintenence and all the other stuff you need for them to operate effectively.
If a small nation is looking at getting tanks, then will it also need to buy planes to ensure air superiority?
I feel like while infantry can hide in the bush and towns- and still pack a punch with modern anti-armour weapons- tanks make a real pretty target without air support and should be left to the bigger nations.
The tanks themselves would probably cost a pittance compared to their support, maintenence and all the other stuff you need for them to operate effectively.
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
Air superiority wasn't mentioned here, but if we're talking about a small country with limited resources I don't think planes would be cost-efficient.
Maybe better to upgrade on mobile SAM and AA capability then?
Most tanks are taken out by low altitude attacks, wich makes the aircrafts vulnerable to groundbased fire.
Once again, quantity is also a quality.
Maybe better to upgrade on mobile SAM and AA capability then?
Most tanks are taken out by low altitude attacks, wich makes the aircrafts vulnerable to groundbased fire.
Once again, quantity is also a quality.
84RFK
Active member
Most airplanes needs a place to land for refueling and reequipping, AKA airfields.
A small country would have less chance to operate several airfields without having them bombed into gravel during the first week of a war.
So while airsuperiority by aircrafts opens up for a nice chance to use the same airforce actively against the enemy, they would still need to be protected by heavy countermeassures in order to keep the aircrafts in the air.
While mobile SAM sites can be targeted and destroyed, it still represents a threath that the enemy has to deal with before they can knock out that mass of otherwise obsolete tanks that effectively blocks the way.
Small countries can't fight a war on a superior enemy's premise, they have to develop their own doctrine, and be prepared to give up something in order to lure the enemy into carefully prepared traps.
It's guerilla warfare on a larger scale.
Korean Seaboy
Active member
Yeah, the bow and arrows still win.....
Just kidding, if you want to have an affordable armored tank, with good quality (for its price), then I recommend....nothing. Honestly, I think there's no affordable tank
Just kidding, if you want to have an affordable armored tank, with good quality (for its price), then I recommend....nothing. Honestly, I think there's no affordable tank
Panzercracker
Active member
What small nation? Switzerland is a small nation and it has Leo2A4s and the're very affordable.
Namibia can't afford Humvees.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I am going to disagree, surely the last 20 years have shown just how ineffective SAM sites and AAA are as the sole method of air defence.
The reality is that armour can not operate well without air superiority and you can not gain air superiority or even parity with just SAM's and AAA you have to have integrated systems.
As far as armour goes I think you would have to be completely out of your mind to buy T-55s or any Russian equipment up to the T-80, on the whole I would look at buying lower quantities of high quality gear and investing heavily in training (basically I am saying you would be better off with 10 Leo2s with well trained crews than 200 T-55s loaded with conscripts).
Last edited:
Panzercracker
Active member
The reality is that armor throught its history did and still does operate effectively even when the enemy has air superiority, see Germany during WW2.
Again depends on a country, in some regions of Africa or South America T-55s are an investment worth taking.
T-64s and T-72s can be a challenging opponent to any tank in the world, literally.
So lets imagine that you have 120 tanks and your enemy has 400, not only will be not be able to deploy them in needed spots in sufficient amount but you dont have reserves as well.
200 T-55s with conscript crews will shoot up any 10 tank unit in the world and it wont even matter that they are not able to breach the hull.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I will skip all the individual points and just go with a single response, if you are buying T-55-T-72s you are buying them for regime maintenance not to fight a war with anyone that can spend a couple of mill on ATGM's and about the same on some clapped out old Russian Mil-24s.
The fact is that short of the latest model Russian tanks all the previous models are little more than cans of pre-cooked meat to anyone wielding more than sticks and stones.
The fact is that short of the latest model Russian tanks all the previous models are little more than cans of pre-cooked meat to anyone wielding more than sticks and stones.
lolwhassup
Active member
T-64's and T-72's have such crap FCS that they would not even be able to accurately return fire to an upgraded or modern MBT like the Leo 2 or M1A2 Abrams, hell an upgraded M60A3 MBT even. If you wanted to get the models of T-72 that actually have decent equipment like ERA or a decent FCS, they would be more than likely out of your budget in this scenario if you wanted 400 of them.
Panzercracker
Active member
You do realise what a challenge it is to hit a tank with an ATGM and destroy it? Oh wait your knowledge comes from computer games, also you realise any army will be OUT of ATGMs in the first week of the war and only some of the will be used on tanks?
I COULD be rude and call you an ignorant moron but i feel charitable, since you are an ignorant moron i'll even help you quite a bit.
T-72B has a 20+ years fire control system 1A40-1 and 9K120 giving him the ability to shoot ATGMs, now explaining how the afformentioned systems work might overheat your empty skull and if you do some research you might refrain from issuing moronic opinions.
Suffice to say T-72B can frontally gut M1A2 from 2000 meters using an ATGM.
As for upgraded M60A3 will not penetrate later versions of T-72s and T-64s frontally unless its using an ATGM, while a single shot (depending on the ammunition) from any of these and including later T-55 models will leave the M60 of any variant as a smoking wreck.
The point about T-72 is that with the works its still cheaper than 2A4s or 1A1s even, i got a table (its in german though) with price comparison somewhere if you're interested.
The only real problem with russian tanks to date were the crews or export versions but the countries of the former Warsaw Pact have both technologies and ready machines to sell upgraded machins at a reasonable price.
To put it on laymans terms, an upgraded T-72 is a rough equivalent of a Leo2A4 but at least 40% cheaper, that makes it a good choice in any circumstances.
Last edited: