American tanks are Better than Russian...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2019
- For this time I decided to actually take a look at a video someone else has made and point out the mistakes that were made.
The video in question is "American vs Russian tanks" by Cynical Historian.
Original video: • American vs. Russian T...
Patreon: / redeffect
I no longer own the discord server. There is another one I made for Patreon supporters, if you want you can check it out.
Sources:
"T-64 Battle Tank - The Cold War's Most Secret Tank" by Steven J. Zaloga
"The Modern Russian Army 1992-2016" by Mark Galeotti
btvt.info/1inservice/t-80.htm
fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/AR...
fofanov.free.fr/Tanks/EQP/era.... 
Авто/Мото
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
CynicalHistorian: "And T-55 can still be found in their reserves today, and it was made in 1958."
Me: *Laughing in active duty B-52*
XD
Also laughing in my m18 hellcat in 90s yugoslavia war !
Don’t Russians still use the Tupolev TU-95?
@@obedambriz8370 They are indeed still and service and will remain. However they are not the "mainline" nuclear bomber. This role is replaced by Tu-160, and even they are being modernized, and when something boils, they are the first planes sent, not Tu-95. In case with US I don't remember B1 getting such attention, and B2, sacrificing a lot for stealth, is not even a suitable competitor to B-52, let alone B1 or Tu-160.
@Sepher Agon Such things heavily depend on opponent. I mean T-55 is a useless tin can against modern opponent, but at the same time some of them are doing pretty well against mish mash of an islamist forces in Syria right now.
Same with B-52. It can still be used against "unconventional" enemies with success, but against an equal enemy - doubtful. They started getting downed back in Vietnam already, and look how technology has leapt. There is such thing as "Morally old", and no amout of "modernization" or "fixing" can change that for B-52 or Tu-95.
I hope we’ll never figure which tanks are better in reality.
Best comment here
Russian tanks were ASS
Russian tanks biggest problems have always been reliability more than anything else
@@ottovonbismarck7646 i wouldnt fancy nuclear war but thank you
You dropped this 👑, king.
The fact that he said the BMP-2 had a bigger gun than the BMP-1 just made me laugh way too much.
It's not bigger but it does have more firepower, which is what i think he meant.
Well it is longer
@@SuperMisteriPlayer Well I know that, but it sounded like he said it in regards to caliber. The BMP-1's 2A48 is 73mm where as the BMP-2's 2A42 is 30mm. I just found it really amusing at the time.
@@yaotails6630 30mm
@@josephahner3031 My bad, Forgot the 2A42 Was 30mm and not 20mm.
That guy really was like "damn, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I should make a video"
"i just want to point out SOME mistakes"
Proceeds to point out everything.
To be fair the video he was reviewing was very wrong in many ways
Lmao
Ya the video redeffect review sounded to pro western.
@@deronchoo3401 I watched the video he was reviewing. That dude never said American or NATO equipment was better than Soviet Gear. He did make mistakes but I never got the impression of pro western. Only actual mocking he did was of American Equipment.
Cynical historian sucks so there really is not other way.
those soldier on the tank at 10:06 are from Afghanistan, which they still use T-62s left from the 40th Army During the 80's soviet-Afgan war
US style uniforms and old soviet tank= Afganistan army
@@Krzemieniewski1 will yes both US and USSR attacked them and this is the result
Soviets wins
@Steve Arthur they're talking about the soviet invasion of Afghanistan before the soviet union's collapse...
I talked to some Iranians about Afghanistan culture and people. Iran borders Afghanistan so an Iranian point of view would be valid. They said the entire Middle East looks at Afghanistan as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies living in the same conditions as they did in the 14th century. It is currently the 21st century. Doesn't say much about Afghanistan.
American tanks are better than Russian tanks … until you have a 50 metric ton rated bridge to cross and realise your M1A2 SEP weighs 67 metric tons. That’s just one example of how which tank is better depends on the terrain you are in and also on how you plan to use your tank.
...until you don't have Air superiority because your fight a country with a legitimate army something the west seems to have forgotten.
Literally Ukraine right now, most ukrainian bridges cant support western tanks, while the ukrainian T-64s have no problem with this at all.
In the 1980s up until the 2010s, the USSR and Russia actually bought formerly exported T-34s back for show purposes, whether it be in monuments, museums, or parades.
Not only is he wrong, he has comments disabled on his video.
Not on all of them but this one, yes.
@@zrbbg9639 I checked two videos in a row and they both had them disabled so i guessed it was universal.
I was wrong, and ill remove the last part.
@@Apopolopis It's alright, I don't know much about this channel either. But disabling the comments in this exact video just shows he doesn't want to admit his mistakes. RedEffect probably saw this and tried to be nice.
Lol that is the #1 sign that he is a complete asshat
@ecocivilian How old are you? Why are you so toxic over stupid political topics?
“The efficiency of something doesn’t come from the thing itself but rather the skill, experience, and discipline of its user”
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
*laughs in winter war*
Lol no
@@joeknow3712 the Russians had tanks and aircraft. one of history best snipers the white death scored 300 kills using an old mosen. the finish took out Russian tanks using a vodka bottle with a bit of fuel mixed in.
so how am I wrong? the reason I said the comment was due to the fact the finish fought off the Russians with bare bones equipment.
@@mckitsune7600 My comment was directed at the quote above and despite how good of a resistance the Finnish put up at the beginning, they still lost the war in the end.
@@joeknow3712 my bad.
and yes while they lost the damage they inflected showed the world how unorganized the red army was.
The only thing that came to my mind when you said "what can western tanks do that soviet tanks can't" what I instantly thought was "reverse". Lol
Man, that reactive armor on the T-72 modern variants and T-80 and 90 Variants are is working like a charm in Ukraine! 🤣😂
what can they say they never imagined having to square up against the Ukrainian farmed forces
tracker go brrrr
Even their cope cages didn't help them against Saint Javelin 😂😂😂
@@LyonPercival there has been no evidence the cages havnt worked…. Most/ all tanks destroyed in the propaganda do not have the cage. The chieftain even ‘debunked’ this
@@acedogboy8421 most destroyed Russian tanks tossed their turret some 20+ meters and landed on the would-be cage. Not hard to imagine how thin sheet metal welded in the field would simply disintegrate in the face of an NLaw or Javelin.
Don't be a simp.
@@bubby8825 there still would be evidence of the cages and yet there is none. Also you have completly missed the point of them if you think they are to stop top attack missiles. Also we are only seeing propaganda. Not misses or failures to destroy a tank. And before u say we have access to russian media ugh no we dont. Russians are banned from western media eg face book…. Not a simp just not a moron.
US: Our tank is better than Russia.
Somewhere in Russia: "An old men starting Soviet IS-3 heavy tank from his garage."
We do that shit in Texas
@@AlexDiaz-hl8qx you don't have IS-3's
CSIS it’s Texas they have weapons from all over the world
@@csis8460 Actually the bulk of IS-3s in personal collections are in Texas.
@@gordonlawrence1448 what! How?
Tha abrams is effective under american use. Give them to the arabs and it becomes just like any other " russian" tank. The only reason an abrams tank is effective is because it is supported with ifv, apache, drones and other assets.
Edison Cambod like any other tank
Americans compare their own tankers with their best trained crews and frontline upgraded tanks against Polish exported T72's ( they were downgraded export versions of Russian T72 and when Poland sold them to Iraq ect they were downgraded even more ) so some people think a bunch of civilians in a downgraded tank will be the same as a T72 on steroids against a trained Russian crew
In WWII the Germans never deployed tanks without support units. As long as they were able to. They had "Panzergrenadiers" units with machine guns in case of infantry attacks.
And their crew, that is one of their important key things
Well the Abrams has not engaged in any conflict where it had to fight a similar era opponent, all of the engagements were against T-55s, Type 69 and export variants of T-72s.
Wow this aged poorly, “T-55 were phased out, even in reserve.” Russia then proceeds to pull them out of reserve to fight in Ukraine in 2023.
How artillery
@@user-tm8ws7th9t the point is they are still in reserve.
Source?
Yeah they are being used as indirect fire on long range.
@@Velikan5.45x39mm the source is multiple videos and images of them being on the frontline of Ukraine, this is easily searchable, the Russians don't deny it either, they aren't being used as MBT's but rather as Artillery but they are still being used
RedEffect: T-55 is not in active servise or reserve.
Russia now: Ivan where the f*ck is that brake these tanks are terrible.
dpr / lpr are using those tanks as they are more familiar with them. i havent seen a single russian regular use them
@@bigmanrobert3610 They are not on front but there are video that T-55 are on their way to front or to repair docks.
They're used as artillery
@@bigmanrobert3610dpr and lpr are gone! Wagner is gone! All that's left are russian orcs left.
no they arent, wagner is literally in africa right now and dpr and lpr have their own units in the russian military@@JACKAL747
Any weapon that works and can still do the job it's meant to do is never truly obsolete.
If it can destroy other of its kind it still has an potential use
@@startingbark0356 These are Soviet god damn tanks, and a tank has gotta kill infantry (reference to another video)
Obsolete doesn't mean useless it means that there are much better alternatives
The guns on the old tanks may be fine, but if the tank is slow and can't spot the enemy first then it is a rolling coffin.
m2 50 cal browning was first used in 1933 and the design of the gun is still unchanged to this day
Be more cautious facing Ivan in a T55 than Muhammad in a T80
Hahah me now=😐 american jokes funny no?
Skull seems like 112 other people thought it was funny
Truth.
your friendly neighbourhood Jew of course they thought it was funny because they’re from the usa what do you expect?
Skull I thought it was funny, I’m not American.
"their industrial capability and general strategic doctrine into throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck"
is what is happening right now with ukraine
seems like it but nothing is sticking
Yup, potential history seems to be correct here.
I remember there being a video where red claimed NLAW and Javelins wouldn't be effective lol
@@Icspiders247 yeah i think its about ERA video, i think he got humbled and proven wrong, just like what i always say russian tanks in paper are good but they're just to be honest trash when used in combat, theres a ukrainian t64bv or its a t72amv (i forgot it was 2 weeks Ago) vs a t72b3, the russian tank wasn't able to pen the turret of the ukrainian tank and the ukrainian tank was able to return fire and able to destroy the russian tank, the russian tank is it either got shot on its side or if its frontal armor ERA isnt effective as advertised or the explosive is missing and got pocketed to buy yatch.
@@Icspiders247 Just remember to take msm propoganda with a grain of slat.
They were averaging 3 to 8 shots at the start of the war per tank and its much more now. Theyve used 30k+ missiles and destroyed less than 3k vehicles.
"For decades after they became obsolete" "The USSR never ever used any armored vehicle decades after they became obsolete"
And what is with T-72A in Ukraine? They shouldn't be there? :D
That's Russia, not the USSR.
They have armor? 😓
@@ezorod8060 yes they do
That’s Russia not USSR
@@Orcawhale1 Russia did not build new T72a it inherited them form USSR.
"they couldn't afford to manufacture a bunch of new armour"
The T-55 and T-72 are 2 of the most produced tanks ever. That fact and the quoted statement do not mesh together...
MatoVuc they made the t72 but not much else
@@fatmanbatman9374 Yes they did, T-80 and T-90 are examples of that.
@@quisqueyanguy120 T-90 is just modernised T-72 lmao
@@mavi1381 still a new tank. But in nutshell, yes
"Couldn't afford" was not a thing during the Soviet Union. They had as much money as the US.
theScotishKoala: let's talk about soviet tanks
RedEffect: *IT'S TOO MUCH BIASED*
Literallly.
Scottish Koala has the brains of an Ant.
@@shoppingcart9559 or maybe he is a koala
Crosshair TV His brain being smooth and full of tumours would explain a lot.
I certainly perfer to keep an open mind in these sorts of situations merely due to the fact that most educational or informational material (at least in my country) are western/NATO/American-centric. They are willing to tell me of the "courageous" americans in the Pacific in WWII but not about how it took them 2 years to get in to the war at all while the Russians had to lift the war efforts on their backs and hold the Nazis off almost immediately after it started, and a bit after it ended in the Eastern front.
We don't usually get this point of view with this level of clarity, so lets just be happy that there's someone who wants to shed some lights on misconceptions and show his side of the argument.
Dont take him too seriously he fails at every topic he covers, I have no respect at the cynical historian.
was waiting for someone to point this out
cynical historian is an absolute joke of a history channel
hes just showing off the US education system
@@myopicthunder it's not even the US education system though, any american should know that US tanks post WW2 were the opposite of generalised.
The American's rapidly ditched their light and medium tank designs for a consolidated main battle tank design and this was in direct response to the lesson learned from Korea and Vietnam. So much so that by the 1970's the US had ditched all replacements for light and medium tank designs in favour of the Abrams.
This was a point of contention for decades about whether or not such a heavy specialised main battle tank was the correct way to move forward, He's also wrong about the doctrines the Abrams from the outset to be able to breakthrough enemy tank divisions, which is why it's weight was controversial and why Chobham armor was adapted.
I'm not huge into armor but, his aviation stuff is wayyy off the mark.
seems hes been vindicated in recent weeks lol
LOL THIS VIDEO DIDNT AGE WELL RUSSIA IS GETING CLAPPED
drones.
this comment aged like iron in a storm
A lot of this trashing Soviet weapons and vehicles come from people only seeing it being used by less effective users like Iraq, and such.
@Mauri Mela
No crap
@Mauri Mela Yeah well all armies have there idiots in them, the soviets included i mean who brings tanks to a mountain.
Check the number produced and the number destroyed ...you might be badly surprised by how many US troop carriers were made and how many ...are not suit for service a long time ago ...
@@IvanIvanov-zv8tx Ah yes i remember the mess the Bradley construction was.
@Mauri Mela yeah winter war soviet leadership was a comedy show waiting to happen.
Where does he get this idea that NATO wanted to push ahead steadily? The US blitzkrieged Iraq twice.
Iraq was a very weak military and the those wars were very small scale compared to the WW3 scenarios most of these machines were designed where air superiority was not guaranteed and the enemy was probably very numerous. Try Blitzkrieg on Russian military and you'll see it wont work as well as it did in Iraq.
Maybe because cold war doctrine of NATO was all about stalling Russians as long as possible, to give chance for main USA forces to come to Europe
have you seen the movie Pentagon wars. Based on true story.
@@shayanperis7681 At the time of operation desert storm (first Iraq war) the Iraq army was the 5th strongest in the world.
@@shayanperis7681 it's easy to see I'm hindsight, but at the time Iraq had just won the Iran Iraq war, and scars from Vietnam were still healing. We were expecting chemical warfare, trench warfare, ATGM spam out the wazoo, and hard steady fighting against crack veteran mechanized infantry forces. We were expecting the ground war to take months, and were gearing up to soak up tens of thousands of casualties. That's why we had so much manpower and gear on the ground. It was only afterwards that we realized exactly how shit the Iraqis were (pretty shit).
And the t55s are back in service
As frontline artillery quick move since they have very versatile munitions where nato tanks don't have
@@alexanderK2700 lick soviet ass a bit more why dont you
@@alexanderK2700 🤡🤡🤡
@@stephenallen4635 bro's greatest enemy were goat breeders with sandals 😂
That statement at 2:10 about soviet/russians not using numbers to overcome the enemy did not age well when you look at Ukraine now.
They started with less people but more firepower, if they really wanted to use "human waves" they would've had way more mobilisations
that thing is "yes soviet use number superiority sometimes but it does not mean their quality is inferior"
in fact if direct compare russian and ukraine equipment now, Russian still vastly superior in quality. if you compare a T80 upgrade used by russian to some ukraine t64 or t72 the answer is pretty simple, Russian is superior.
However, their serious lagging behind in informatization make their equipment vunlearbale to atgms or portable anti tank weapons in this guerrilla warfare alike place.
It does not mean they were any bad or sth, the thing i saw for now, is they really need to keep up the digital and informatization progress, not really that much in their tanks
Russians entered with less than 200 000 vs Armed forced of Ukraine at 250 000 + Border Guard + Territorial Guard + Volunteer units + Mobilised Active Reserve. Russians were outnumbered 2:1 in manpower but they fielded the most mechanized force in history, the ratio of armored vechicles and artillery was extremly high and because they had little regular infantry in their force composition they had to rely on tanks heavily even if the terrain was not favourable which led to significant eqiupement losses.
The burnt down Russian tank in thumbnail is one of the Ukrainian T-64s lost in the Ukraine conflict.
Bugatti04 FUCK No you fucking idiot!
@@angryhedgehog4266 damn chill out yo
@@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial True.
@Bugatti04 FUCK used by the ukrainians not the ruskies
And that equals that it was destriyed probably because it was used by the Ukrainians
The majority of Russian tanks are outdated, cold war era tanks that would be destroyed by modern NATO MBTs before they even knew what happened. Sorry Russian fanboys. Even the T-90 lags behind in virtually every metric compared to its NATO counterparts. Maybe the T-14 could show some promise but its difficult to sort out the reality from the propaganda when it comes to getting information on that tank.
RedEffect: "I don't see anything a certain tank could do that the russian tank couldn't be able to achieve"
Me: Depress their gun.
russian tanks are shorter than any nato tank, they dont need such a depression as american tanks.They were purposely made like that
@@dimitrijestevanovic4851 try doing berm drills without good depression
@@dimitrijestevanovic4851 what is over hill shooting? Gun depression fucked the Iraquis pretty good when they had to go over the hill top to get shots, exposing their whole tank.
@@dimitrijestevanovic4851 I don't think that's a good reason thought. Would be nice if Russian tanks have deppresion
@@frostruneIt's alright. This star spangling troglodyte doesn't have enough brain cell to count in the simple analogy of "This Vehicle can cross a bridge, but not all bridges can be crossed by this vehicle." He's right of course it's designed to go through mud but Physics still works the same even more so on a 70 tonnes tank against soft ground. Which is why those Star Spangled Retard has a lot of recovery vehicles.
this video aged well, the very first counter point of all bmp 1s being upgraded to bmp 2 has been shown to be extremely wrong, even with the lil caveat at the end
Man, it’s going to be great when Ukraine starts getting those Leopard 2’s and Abrams tanks so we can finally put this nonsense to bed.
NATO tanks are far superior to Russian ones.
In every regard except for Weight and Height.
FCS? Better.
Ammunition? Better.
Thermals? Better.
It’s only going to get worse for Russia since the sanctions are sapping up their ability to design and build their “super tanks”
"That Soviets used numbers to overcome the enemy which isn't really true."
Battle of Kursk:
Russian casualties 800,000
German casualties 200,000
Well, tank on tank battles against German late war panzers were tough 😛
But the post war Soviet doctrines were anything but designed around "human waves".
@@JAnx01 you right soviet doctrine included shitty tank waves... it was improvement from WWII time human waves, I must admit that, but not very smart doctrine.
Putin is now attempting to win Ukraine war botched victory march with old soviet shitty tanks in wave doctrine, but he doesn't have mass army like soviets did. That is the reason, why Putin is in big trouble.
P.S. I'm old, served in soviet mechanized infantry as conscripted auxiliary mechanic. I Know that from first hand.
Or tanks
German casualties: 1200
Russian casualties: 6,064
Or planes,
German casualties: 629
Russian casualties: 2,220
It's a hell of a KD XD
@@afonsoabreu5144 Not to mention a good chunk of Russian tanks were imported from allies, or that the trucks that supported them were all imported.
Those aren't the right numbers lmao. Germany had 380-430k casualties. USSR had 250k killed.
Red effect smells bias
Red effect: im gonna end this whole mans career
What career? What career?
@@pedromiranda5448 Cynical historian. I watch all his stuff and he isn't going anywhere despite the mistakes we all make. :)
You realize that the Abrams was introduced in 1980. Updated or not, our main battle tank would be too old to enlist in the military if it were a human being. I do smell bias, more Budweiser flavored bias than vodka flavored bias. Abrams is a joke and Bradley isn't even a tank
@@patrickaalfs9584 The Abrams is absolutely no joke at all and the question can only be if they could be maintained and supplied in large numbers near the Russian border. If the USA can do that they should do just fine and especially as active countermeasure comes into vogue.
@@pietersteenkamp5241 Dude, you obviously don't get the joke
"T72 is still in duty, is so bad its from the 80`s !!"
**M1 Abrams trying to hide itself**
TheFistOfShadow you wished
In both cases, are we talkin about the original or are we talking about the updated modernized version. Current versions of the Abrams the only have the hull shape in common with their first generation predecessors.
mrspeigle1 oh yeah and the 58 mm or rha on the upper plate they kept that too hahahahahah
The T-72 is based on a design from 1950. Do you read or study military facts or just log on occasionally and have diarrhea of the mouth?
@@uio890138 another american come to defend there shit tank hahahaha
Turns out the Cynical Hystorian wasn't that wrong after all.
In general, currently, I do believe that the American tanks are better than the Russian tanks. Why? First, the quality of the equipment. Secondly, the quality of the maintenance, and thirdly, the training quality of the armed forces in general.
@P T also 50% money
that guy is like one of my friends he has an extreme American bias
His view of military military equipment and tactics is based off military section of wiki. Hes the type of guy to say russia best cause vodka and russian bear mentality.
I was about to hear him out but then he turned the comments and likes ratio off.
lol have you looked at Red Effect's channel? Talk about bias
@@andrews3951 What? lol
@@BL4ST_ He has a big Russian bias.
Everyone here: American
Everyone here: Defends Russia at all costs
Im not taking a side it’s just pretty funny
I get you're joking, but ion think all of us American
I am not American
bro, i got your point, and is true, but im not american, im brazilian lol
I am not American, how about that, eh?
And second of all, USA! USA! USA!
@-- Yeah Germans are better than abrams. That's a fact on its own
The problem with your rebuttal, everything the Russians have performed well below there hype and specs. In Ukraine a T90M was hit by three M72’s at about 200 meters and two of the shots penetrated and knocked it out and this was a straight on shots. Several T72 BV3 where also taken out by recoiless rifles.
to give the guy the benefit of the doubt this was made two years ago
I don't think they have deployed the T-90M's yet though there are pictures and reports of T-90's and T-90A's losses.
There’s a video of a t-80 getting penetrated by a 30mm auto cannon. Second shot went straight through.
Theres no such tank as T-72BV3, theres T-72B3's which did actually perform better than the Ukrainian T-64BVs that got annihilated en masse but the western media does whatever it can to censor Ukrainian casualties. While Russia did suffer heavy losses it never expected, the point of this video is to disprove another westerner talking bs he doesnt know about.
@@kazuhiramiller7491 bruh go look at oryx. The Russians are losing 4x the equipment that Ukrainians are. Russia is now changing the goalposts, scaling back the entire invasion. Would be surprised if they take a total loss at this rate.
Video aged like milk..
like some say, "what do you expect from a russky pet?"
Not really no. This is a full out war against two big countries, the smaller of which is being given the most modern military support by other countries; you are bound to see destroyed tanks left and right. If USA was the one that attacked Ukraine and Russia was supporting Ukraine in the same way that NATO is, then you would be seeing big military loses in the same way. This isn’t a street fight against a bunch of terrorists, this is the biggest war in Europe since WW2. This did not age poorly, you hearing about grossly exaggerated and usually incorrect info does not mean that this video aged poorly.
Abrams aged like milk too, all tanks are vulnerable today
@@gtamyths96fpv drone gose boom!
Russia: we have many tanks
Finland: Molotov time
Molotovs killed absolutely zero tanks. It was used to fuck the crew by throwing it into air intake after it got disabled by either a satchel charge or a at mine
Mareos42 well actually during the winter war they mainly had the t-26 at the time and it had a big open exhaust, open view ports which by the way they would put their pistol barrels into to shoot the driver and capture the tank the Finns captured a lot of Russian tanks it was a humiliating defeats and losses for the red army.
@@billhamburger7444 Yes but we never used molotovs succesfully on moving targets. It was mainly for disabled tanks.
Mareos42 oh I thought you meant Molotov’s we’re not able to knock out the tank the Russians were not tactical geniuses when it came to tanks the Finns made better use of them.
@@billhamburger7444 Are you talking about foreign secretary molotov or molotovs cocktails?
T55s completely phased out of reserves,if you look at syria,the syrian recieved T62Ms,T72Bs,T90s and T90As.They also recieved M30 howitzers.A good indicator about russian reserves.
There is diffrence betwean active reserve a.k.a US National Guard or Brit Territorial Army and reserve storages like US storages in deserts or Russian logistic bases. First are active units while second just keep equipment on number in one place. First one can be used after few weeks of intesive training, while second would need around year and more to bring equipment to usefull state and train soldiers to use it.
Well shit homie. It’s Jan. 2023 and I just saw T-55’s being loaded onto trains and sent west to Ukraine.
That should tell you something about Russian reserves.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 Where did you see that? I thought the oldest tanks they sent to ukraine were T62's
@@offset7711 Was a vid that was taken near the town of Samar, located a bit aways from the border.
No real confirmation, yet.
No real confirmation on if it’s going to Ukraine or not either, so if I didn’t say it before… add might to whatever I said before.
@Christian Tonzillo Idiot Director ah okay. I only know of the t62 Tanks they sent to Ukraine. If that is true that they sent t55's than that would be embarrassing.
A Ford Focus is better than a Russian Tank!
💀
T-72 series tanks light up faster than Ford Pintos.
“No t-55’s in Russian stockpiles” T-55’s appearing in Ukraine 3 years later
It's used as mobile artillery
@@yaya_is_real it's still being used
8:05 Awaken, my medium tanks!
Japanese made light tank - Type 10
I like how he said that the Soviets had a MBT in 1945, the Soviets never had a MBT in 1945 and the T-54 was never even produced in 1945, it was only the T-44 Medium tank, the T-54 started production 1947 all the way to 1951 and later the T-55 replaced it.
T-54 actually had a prototype completed in 1945, so technically he's not really wrong. However, the T-54 was not classified as an MBT. It was a medium tank.
Maybe they have dyslexia and mixed up 45 & 54 or perhaps they hadn’t noticed that number behind the T roughly corresponds, being related to and a couple of years earlier than when a particular Russian tank entered service… 🤷🏻♂️
They did have a heavy tank in 1945. The IS 2
@@arandomdeadmau5fan861 Sorry man, can't read properly, sooooooo see ya
@@xxfalconarasxx5659 I never knew that. The more you know.
Well, one thing we have discovered in Ukraine is that Russian tanks blow up real good.
They might just jump start the space race again.
@@mochiisntbad6762 But I thought there was a reason they didn't use Jules Verne's method of launching manned spacecraft.
Boy, this video did not age well. The tankies ain't gonna like this one bit!
Also he fails to note America still uses the Abrahms which was made in the 70's regardless of uprades its old. Yes I'm an American saying that.
Also inspired from MBT 70
and it's gun a modified version of German L 44 or L 55
wait your American and your name chi don lol
@@ikill-98 the newest version uses Israel APS I think called dthe Windbreaker also used on the Merkava 4
Chi Don I would imagine if the US wants to create a successor to the Abrams it would just be a tank version of the F-35
Spectacularly Disastrous
It is old as a base design, but it doesn't mean it's any bad. In fact it's really nice for what the US needs.
@@Bcso591 Its the modularity of the Abrams that has given it such a long life span compared to its predecessors... American Military LOVES modularity in all forms...
*Thicc NATO tonk *exist*
Russian HE : "imma end this tank's whole -carreer- crew"
in war thunder maybe, in reality, not exactly
Oh right i forgot that part, but who knows
@@Stepan_M yeah, nobody is going to use HE in tank vs tank fight... sabot or heat all the way, HE are for soft targets (APCs, IFVs, or pillboxes)
Nobody wants to be sophiticated, sure
@@Stepan_M buddy, thats just how it is.
That thumbnail couldnt be more accurate.
For me cynical historian sounds nothing more than an arrogant "lets F*ck them up a bit" nobody who tryes not get facekicked by people who are even less intelligent than him. Still redeffect was clearly not to offend anyone, he was calm and accurate "just to see thing clear" in a modest style. Great video, I'm proud of my reddude.
Cynical Historian does have that arrogant air around him in almost every video.
It's really not about
"How powerful the tank is"
It's really just about
"How good they're using it and how good , and easy to produce it and also how easy to Operate the tank"
T 34
@@lolofblitz6468 ah yes quantity over quality
@@lolofblitz6468
....Which got massacred time and again, with German tankers noting "How odd. We manage to put three rounds on target before the crew even realises which direction we are".
And about which the manual for Armee Gruppe Mitte wrote "Slow and unmoveable. Effect mostly psychological. Combat effectiveness: Very low.", before the manual goes on to describe various ways you can disable a T34, even with a bottle, or a rifle.
@ Also happened with the Iranian conflict, US Abrams obliterated the opositions tanks even though they outnumbered them 10 to 1.
@ That explain why the Germans won the w... Wait a minute.
I always figured the Russian's "superior numbers" was meant more as "locally superior numbers". I have a older US Army battalion tactics field manual (I forget the exact one, it is packed in storage) and the manual talks about Russians using locally superior forces to cause a breakthrough. The US tactic was to create a front line that would blunt the attack, and then use a mobile reserve to counter attack once the focal point was found. A lot of these tactical ideas are only relevant when there is a frontline against two major powers.
If by Russia's "superior numbers" you mean during WW2, then it also means a literal overall superiority in numbers in total too. The Soviets, which includes more than just Russia but also Mongolia and Siberia ect., deployed more frontline troops and had a larger army overall than the Axis forces. So it means both locally and overall, although the tactic of using locally superior numbers to cause a breakthrough was pretty common and was used even back in WW1 by German stormtroopers so it wasn't unique to Russia.
Javelins are popping all types of Russian tanks left and right in Ukraine. The tanks can’t stand up to infantry I doubt they stand any type of chance against NATO armor.
the only tanks with a real chance nowadays are the T-90MS and the T-14 Armata, but they can't produce any Armatas since 1 russian ruble is equivalent to a Minecraft emerald
edit: typo on T-14 Armata
Javelin will pop any tank, including NATO tanks...
@@petrkdn8224 not true modern tanks have APS which makes missile nearly ussles
@@wrpg9955 well modern Russian tanks also have APS, they just weren't equipped with it in the war
@@wrpg9955 doesn’t the Russia APS system on those tanks not have 360 degree coverage? That would make it unable to be used against the Javelin that comes up and down onto its target, but it could be used against basically any other missile
This aged badly
it didnt tbh, its mostly the ATGM's that destroyed russian tanks, the russian kornet ATGM could also penetrate NATO armor.
how the javelin, komet, switchblade 60, bayraktar, nlaw would not effect the abrams or leo
@@Skill_Issued : (Leo/ Abrams) Crew would survive hit from ATGM.
Rip. Russian Jack in the box turrets
@@ProfessorFickle pov never seen anything from Yemen
Ok you can say they had worse armour but they were going up to flames with kornets the Russian ATGM but that ATGM is not even good
Now what will happen to a Abrams when they get hit with a javelin or nlaw they will blow up and not just burn out you are comparing javelins to kornets it's like comparing a bronze sword with a steel sword, the price of a kornet is 29,000 while the javelin is 10x the price, you just always see things in Iraq or afghan which they don't have modern equipment
So yes a Leo/abrams crew will die if they get hit by a modern ATGM, just look at when the carl Gustav hit the t90 it just disabled it and the crew got out. That's the same thing when a kornet hits a Abrams or Leopard it will just disable it
@@Skill_Issued YES Western tank crews can die from ATGM . Not all hits are catastrophic, some are mobility kills or sensor damaged … etc… etc
BUT Russian tanks have giant defective design since t62-t72-t80-t90
(Lol, the T90m does not have a defect btw)
7:12 Something that western tanks can do that a russian never could? How about lowering the barrel of their gun?
@@kraspootis9051 you're willing to forgo the benefit of in higher ground?
Or reversing at any other speed than crawl
The t 80`s had more thai 30 kph in reverse, and since the battlefields russisk tanks would fight om would be the great east european plain, High Ground would not be neccesarry
@@frederikbertel6621 citation please, I've understood that T80's reverse speed is doubled compared to T-72 but that is still around 10kph which is laughable compared to any other modern tank. Not to mention that most T80's have been left to storage and mostly unupgraded (some have been but the platform has been left to age because focus is on T90 and T14) due to lack of funds and issues uncovered in the chechen war.
regarding your plains comment now you have a tank that can work in the open plains just like any tank in the world can but is sub-optimal at any other terrain, hardly what you want since the most important theatre for soviets and Russians was/is Central and Eastern Europe which is highly urbanized, has loads of woods, swamps and rolling hills.
@@castor3020 Well im a tanker in Polish army in T80, it can do about 30km/h in reverse, so like 25mph? Also for more depression on a gun you just throw a log that you are always carrying behind your tank and reverse on it, or so my DS told me on my second day when I asked and walked away laughing
People loves to discredit the Russian technological achievements, this is quite common. Poland is still using upgraded T72Ms (being upgraded or phased out) and PT91 Twardy as a highly modified versions of that tank. T55s that were manufactured in Poland in the 1970s are still being used in some countries, including Syria. Soviet tanks (pre T80) are still quite common the the Eastern and Central Europe. Great video, Cheers!
Though Poland upgraded to leopard 2
What western army gives a shit about T-55 ? Let’s be serious. If your are PMC with limited weaponry, yep, maybe a T-55 can ruin your day.
But a regular army with MBT, artillery or anti tank missiles would wipe out any T-55 before it even knows what happened.
@@vinncentuntiedt5851 Poland gotten Leopard 2A4s that will be upgraded to 2PL standard and bunch of 2A5s, but the PT91s and few T72s are still in use.
@@JayZx777 it just shows that Poland thinks , that T 72s are severly outdatedt.
@@vinncentuntiedt5851 There was another significant plan for modernizing T72 and PT92, but that appears to be scrapped. Instead the Leopard 2a4 s are being highly upgraded to a Polish standard 2PL. Poland will most likely be buying more Leopards tanks or it will either try to develop an MBT by itself or with cooperation of another country.
There's a Reason the Abrams is called "Whispering Death." If the thing is hidden well enough visually, it's difficult to hear up close, and nearly impossible at longer ranges because of that turbine.
Yes it guzzles gas, but it's also far lighter than any comparable diesel. Plus it's more compact.
Not too many 1500 hp diesel engines out there and none that are as light and compact. Very specific trade-offs were made and that tank can sneak up on a target, kill it, and be gone before the crew even knew the Abrams was there. Literal "ninja tank." That advantage alone is worth its weight in gold.
The Russians had the T-80, but when they saw how much turbines drink, they said "NOPE!" Can't say I blame them; the Abrams only gets .9 mpg, which is bleh, but not as bad as you'd think.
And it doesn't sound like a diesel tank so a target has to be able to not only hear it first, but then identify it as a tank. And I can imagine how difficult it is to do when you're in a running tank.
Then I've heard from other YT channels that Abrams export tanks don't feature the depleted uranium armor panels. I don't know how true that is but so far it's like many things in this subject: how good is your crew?
The Abrams can fire even past 10 rounds a minute with a manual loader and can take advantage of terrain better with the 10 degree gun depression. So far we've lost very few tanks if you're talking American crews and vehicles. We can't account for what Ukraine does with what we gave them, but America has lost less than a handful.
"we've lost very few tanks" How many of the countries you've faced have had legitimate comparable force? America seems to enjoy picking on poor countries with little to no air capabilities
@@onri_ Since Vietnam, that's pretty much all our military has ever faced. Believe me, that's my "government" doing it's thing again at the behest of the Bankers. Thank Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others. It was a HUGE mistake to allow our "government" to sell out to the corporate bankers in 1913.
“The US Marines kept using M60 tanks till the late ‘90s” yeah because the Marines have like a $20 budget…
Leopard I and AMX-30 in 1967: “I’m in danger!”
Leopard 1 focused on fast mobility but had paper thin armor that wouldn't stop rounds above 20mm rounds on the hull. Turret was stronger but Soviet tanks could easily pen them.
HERPY DERPEDY I just auto-aim even with my tier 8s. No need to aim for weak spots!
@@bryanmartinez6600 Bullshit, front of the hull was pretty thick. Not as thick as M60 or t54/55, but still thick for machineguns/autocannons.
@@hekkoki yeah that's why I said 20mm rounds but a Gatling gun will chew throw it's armor
troll oracle
If that target survives using its composite, yikes for the Leo.
People kept trying to talk shit about T-90 not realizing T-90 is actually the cheaper, weaker version of what Russia originally was going to go with: Object.187(better slope on hull, welded turret - later adopted by T-90A, longer gun - later came in the form of 2A82 with better backward compatibility on ammunition). And that's not just on paper, multiple prototypes were built and tested, iirc one of them even had a turbine engine.
The Russian "supertank" T-14 traces its lineage back to mid/late Soviet era.
EcchiRevenge only a dumb guy , talk shit and underestimate t90
@@dewlittle1211 Not at all.
You just failed to read.
Why should Cynical give any fact when those facts don't stick to those who care more about their feelings, than actual facts.
PS. Neither Russian nor Wester MBTs did not experience real opponent in Tank Battle!
aged like milk in the sun bro. rip
RedEffect:American tanks are better than russian tanks
Me:tank is tank
XD
Just like the roads. Road is road, road go same way.
Нет. Tank is not tank. You are saying that the glorious Russian T14 Armata is the same as a shitty abrams.
how bout the bob semple
get the meme pls
@@randomperson5775 The Bob Semple is not a tank, it is a God
Blyat no one messes with Soviet Bias
Блят!
except everyone with proper thermal sights who proceeds to knockout all of the russian tanks at night
@@roadrunner6224 not anymore these days 🇷🇺
@@comradeweismann6947 and you didn't even show a Soviet flag lol
@star dekk sadly, my phone keypad does not give me one. Blame the capitalist phone companies
American Tanks got high American spirit
This video aged pretty badly. The T-55 is going to Ukraine, and the Russians are using human wave attacks.
You mean human waves attack like the Conscripts they round up and pull out cafe's and shops in Ukraine then send in trucks to the front to rush into bakhmut with no vehicles since the ground is too muddy for that ? I'm tired of Ukrainian men dying for NATO and zelesnky. There's also no T-55 in Ukraine it's mostly trenches missiles artillery.
I'm more of a fan of western tanks but Soviet/Russian tanks are still incredible pieces of engineering
especially for the time they came out
And are what are you going to use them for? Offensive actions or are you planning of fighting on the defends?
Of course they are , just think think about autoloading systems in their tanks . They using it since 60s
@@yousifm.f.m.s4572 Autoloading is inferior to human loaders, it was made to reduce the overall profile of the tank
But crewed by conscripts
8:29 the north koreans must had laugh after seen that ridiculous painting
Dude he just is hungry for some AP shells
Yea. We gotta make em laugh and then blow them up.
@@dauzlee2827 It was to affect chinese, in 1950 china was in the year of the Tiger, they wanted to scare them whit their gods.
It’s funny to watch this now and seeing Russia keep in line once again with all the stereotypes about it
Yup. Those western tanks were crushed in the Golan heights. Oh wait.. Never mind
Strategy, Tactics and training effect the outcome of a battle more than the quality of weaponry, . If you have the highest quality weopens with poor tactics you will still lose to a lower quality weopens with tactics suited the strength and limitations of the weopen
Sounds like nam to me
Saudis poor performance in Yemen is the proof of that...
Solipsil thats it just what he said. The us army was fueled with tonns of modern helis, tanks, weapons, jets and tech but still lost by the vietnamesed that used better tactics Even with poor weapons
@@johnnyho3702 I think vietnamese weren't had better weapons. In my opinion the type-56 (Chinese version of the AKM) was better than the m16 at least at short range were most engagements were.
@@johnnyho3702 I think the vietnamese HAD better weapons*
I left a comment on his video that pretty much said the exact same things. It really doesn’t make any sense that the USSR would use T34s in the 60s if they actually wanted to win a war against nato.
@eddie money Add some cage/ERA, and those 85mm HE shells are just as deadly in infantry support role as they were 70 years ago!
Yes. Having less tanks transforms the remaining tanks into a Super Robot armed with exploding arms and fists, powered by the power of friendship.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the more targets that you offer, the better the chances for your best units to do their job uninterrupted.
Also if can make a big boom at infantry, and be impervious to most of their infantry weapons, its still a big problem to the enemy.
@The Doge-Emperor of Dogekind No one likes to hear about their mistakes. :(
hi K...
'
ussr russia was never win war anti NATO-OTAN in eastern europe...
thank to american president ronald reagan did the great job...
tear this wall down in germany
i would use any tank in an all out war. a t34 is still dangerous as hell against softer targets. t34 in a support role is still a cannon and machineguns. id take a t34 over nothing any day.
I notice that people keep arguing which tank is better. The tanks are built to fight in different terrain and have different doctrine. People need to stop arguing.
After seeing the tactics used in Ukraine. Do you believe your statements are still true regarding Russian tactics?
Correct some mistakes the whole video from that guy is a mistake 😂😂 love you redeffect
Cynical is great but i am not sure he is any kind of military history specialist going by the content i have watched.
Neither is redeffect. He is hopelessly biased and as far as I can tell has no military experience. It is difficult to find unbiased videos on military equipment. You definitely won't find it here. Having operated Soviet equipment, I can tell you that most of what you hear from this guy is propaganda. Take everything he says from that perspective.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Unfortunately the bias against Soviet equipment is promulgated from on high and astoundingly widely believed so it's not merely a question a bias exist but that this one is so skewed that it may convince some bigots/imperialist in the west that the nazi's just made a few small mistakes and this time the Russians are just going to fold and be easily defeated. As for your claims about soviet equipment against unfortunately many people who claim to have operated it tell lies that can be dispelled with actual photographic evidence and even lesser means. It's like we are expected to believed the dumbest things on the order of WOMD in Iraq and babies being thrown out of incubators.
ZonTheDon I'm probably the only person on this page that has actually operated Soviet tanks but you evidently think that you know more. What's YOUR experience? Watching RUclips?
Pieter Steenkamp If you think I'm lying, climb into a T 72 and slew the turret. If you're in the wrong place, it will be the last thing you do. Soviet tanks were not designed with crew comfort or safety in mind. You might think this unimportant but crew comfort directly relates to efficiency.
Also, I think you did this video quite professionally. You didn't bash CH, and just pointed out some mistakes. Good for you, man.
This didnt age well kek
Well I think its quite clear now that there were plenty of bmp1s left
I was focusing on something else and I heard the music at 8:05 and i thought the Adeptus Custodes showed up.
Y e S
Also Baneblade is best tank
Not alone brother
True
A man of culture i see
omg ikrrr
That title though lol.
But alas good job correcting the mistakes in a clear and easy to understand manner. You have my thanks.
Dare I even say : you have my tanks.
@@zyrolupercal2111 lol
@@zyrolupercal2111 oh u cringy boy
GENERAL KENOBI Yeh I love me some good ceinte.
"Russians never use obsolete equipment"
Aged like milk on a hot day.
I love going back and seeing the absolute hubris from the Russians and Eastern Bloc tank enthusiasts.
yeah that part about the T62 also didnt age too well lol
@@offset7711 We are probably a few weeks away from spotting the first T-55 in Ukraine, as a train was spotted moving towards Ukraine carrying T-55’s and old GAZ-66 Trucks
@@PeterMuskrat6968 ya remember when he said all bmp 1s were upgraded to bmp 2 and there are maybe a few bmp1 left. Meanwhile 250 have been either destroyed or captured.
@@WiscoMTB37 Lmao, just goes to show… NEVER under any circumstances believe any numbers that come out of Russia.
They are pathological liars, and are incapable of telling the truth.
Pre war I’d put the number of Russian tanks at 4000-6000 total. Those include operational tanks and tanks that could be repaired and sent to the battlefield.
Which would leave several thousand rusted hulks that are either complete scrap or a source of spare parts.
Since a lot of the numbers of Russian Tanks in storage comes from the 90’s and has been repeated for 2 decades, meanwhile rusting, looting and sales (legally and illegally) of those tanks have been happening.
2:05 "Now this statement is only based on myth that stuck from world war 2" That aged like a fine wine.
I'm an American who was always fairly anti-Russian/Com-Bloc (a child of the late 70's/early-80s there was a LOT of Cold War propaganda running around) but it learning about military and weapons history I've come to really love Russian weapons/armaments and tactics. Really interesting to see how we did so many things so differently but with the same goals. Russian/Com-Bloc/Eastern Eurp arms/Military forces deserve respect and appreciation.
Nope. They are the forces of authoritarianism and oppression as far as I am concerned.
Thankfully my parents never tought me to be anti-anyone only those who wish harm on us and who want to abuse us
@@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150 Like Russia
@@tomwhitworth1560 Russia is not bothered with concerned bothered idiots
@@johnsnow9887 Unless they are Eastern european
2:35 I would also mention the fact that T-62 was the first tank to use Depleted Uranium shells or atleast use them in real combat.
Ey whats up xd
T 62s were massacred by Israeli m-60s and Centurian tanks in the six day war .
falopu FTW actually yes because they lack elevation and depresion... so your mighty argument is wrong
Allies wished they had T-62 tanks during WW1
The Germans wouldn't have time to dig trenches
I don’t think so
These tanks have proven themselves inferior to everything they have come up against.
Unfortunately Russia hasnt used a lot of its modern and latest military hardware.
We have yet to see the Amatra tank in combat.
If it shows to be crap then there won't be many countries interested in purchasing this so called modern MBT, so we may not see it in use in Ukraine.
Like what? Javelins and NLAWS?
Americans(or Iraqi's, I forgot) lost some of their Abrams to a bunch of crazed village people with sandals and Aks in Iraq.
@@mochiisntbad6762 : Russian tanks turrets do a Jack-in-the-box after a small ammo rack hit. R.I.P Russian crew. Russia does not have enough recovery vehicles.
2014 New Iraq army Abrams tank crews survived and tank was recovered after Taking a ammo rack hit from a 9M133 (AT-14)
what people forget is what really matters overall: numbers and logistics. i bet we could even switch the tanks between blocks. they are all good enough actually. But what matters most is who has the best capacity to sustain the troops in the field (food, amm, clothes, reinforcements, spare parts but also good combined warfare) and give them good info.
Tbh its just a case of who sees who first and tanks without thermals have a massive disadvantage.
It wasn't such a big problem, back in the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s
9:48 They're Afghan. He is an combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and was a tanker before being reassigned as a cavalry scout.
I think the Russians have really good tanks, they just dont use them properly.
logistics problems too
This is the correct answer, but as always the kids don't understand this.
I agree and disagree
Russia has big problems with combined warfare. They have the theoretical support of aviation but in reality it often doesn't work out
the problem is that they're tanks are built around a doctrine that hasn't been used since the 70s-80s
Good video. Something that people often overlook is that a tank doesn't have to be the best, or even modern, to be deadly. If you don't have basic AT weapons at your disposal, it won't matter if it's an Abrams or a Sherman coming at you, your service rifle isn't going to cut it. Obviously anti-tank tactics are more complex than simply the weapons systems designed to destroy them, but you won't stop at T-72B with an AKM or M-16.
8:06 It that a jojo reference
I was anticipating such a comment.
UnknownTyrant wrrrrryyyyy
T-54: awaken my masters!
Sovient union: constantly iterates and designs new tanks to insure their armoured units have access to the most advanced tanks in the world, the result of which meant they have alot of different tanks and variations
some western sympathizer: this tank is based on an older tank design and that means it IS an older tank
Robyn Giesbrecht commie
What's your opinion of Western tanks?
I am not sure where RedEffect is getting its information... There are thousands of old T-55, T-62 and other tanks in the Russian inventory still to this day... According to Russia's own reports, there are 2800 T-55's, 2500 T-62's and 2000 T-64's in its national reserves. Think about that, it has 70 year old tanks in its reserves.... That would be like the USA having 7 divisions of M48 Patton II's
Well to be fair the M48 bested the T-55s to T-72s in every matchup they ever had, so it’d be fitting to dust those off.
This video didn't age well...Russian tanks turrets are flying off like bottle caps
A lot of comments like "monkey model tanks, it was arabs using it, not the real deal, russian stuff is rugged and strong" and then the last 3 weeks everyone who shat on russian equipment is sitting with a smug face right now because they are being proven right.
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 its pretty cringe tbh russian fanbois or any wrong-sided fanbois would keep lying to themselves and do mental gymnastics so they'd feel right...
even if we see Russian armor is only good at shelling civilian buildings from afar and maybe scaring civvies 😅
How can a tank defend against a top attack missile? No-how! Javelins and nlaws are the things causing casualties against russian tanks. Even an abrams or leopard would turn into mush if it was hit by a javelin or nlaw... You cannot defend the roof of a tank efficiency. Its not up to the tank
Your comment did not age well either. NATO Greatest Offensive of 2023 in Ukraine did not go well either.
Im waiting for tank expert Commenting
self proclamed tank expert
@@warmbreeze7996 yep
It just sometime funny hearing them fighting lol
I also love the people who never serve talking about specifications...
@@armyguy3285 And i find it even funnier when people who served in some bush somewhere then think they don't actually have to learn the numbers and read the history....
VietNam still use T 54 till today . Still pretty good , we also have M41 Walker Bulldog captured from US. US and Russia tank are both good but i would choose Russian tank for its price
Western Countries: build their tanks with 60+ tons
Soviets: rebuild most of the bridges on eastern Europe to support aprox. 40t.
West: :(
west builds awesome bridge layers
I guess we will soon find out...