Not really sure where “Russian junk” is coming from. These machines are designed for specific purposes that are very different from western vehicles. Some are even pretty sophisticated. The t64 was the first mass produced tank with composite armor. The bmp1, even with all of its issues, was revolutionary at the time it was first produced. The first real IFV. The Soviets never really thought of how one of their tanks is 1v1 superior to a nato tank. That isn’t the point. They are designed to function within the very specific framework of their doctrine. Calling for speed and large numbers in massed attacks. Even with that, the Soviets probably had an edge on our tanks up until the Abrams. Which was obviously an incredible vehicle.
@@zagstrukk Yeah, pretty much. NATO tanks are definitely built to be able to operate during delaying actions and in defense while under a massed attack on a large front and act in a much more independent fashion. And yes, 1v1 most nato tanks are going to do better than a Soviet tank, at least in the mid 70s and 80s. Better optics, FCS, etc etc. the Soviets weren’t delusional, they understood that well and it reflects in their documentation of their doctrine. But their lesson from ww2 is that no matter how good your vehicle, it’s always going to take massive attrition. So it’s better to have loads of vehicles that are good enough as opposed to a small number of excellent vehicles
@@Rokaize their is one spot to where you are wrong. The Leopard and challenger are built to play defense. The M1 was built for running and gunning. Which is exactly what happened in 1991
@@zagstrukk Yeah true but the doctrine at the time wasn’t really for an offensive. Local, limited counterattacks sure, but nato knew it was going to have to play defense at least in the opening stages. With a lot of delaying actions and falling back to other defenses trying to slow down the Soviets and inflict attrition. Against the Soviet military I don’t think running and gunning like 1991 would work, especially since many m1s in the 70s and 80s were still using 105mm guns and didn’t have the heavy armor (HA) upgrade. Just bear in mind that the primary method of defending against tanks in NATO was to actually use TOWs and other ATGMs. It wasn’t until abrams that they were confident in their ability to handle Soviet armor with tanks. But even then, they knew eventually their abrams forces would face severe losses eventually. Which is pretty openly discussed in a lot of the unclassified documentation on this from the time period. Against the Iraqi army that has been pummeled into oblivion by aircraft? Sure it can definitely run and gun in that situation as we all saw.
You do realize that the US military of 91 took down the 4th largest armor force in less than 4 days. The air force didn't really do all that much in terms of damage. The ground forces though that another story
@@Vincent98987 To a degree yes, only issue is that it was designed by the infantry school who has zero clue on how to design AFV/IFVs. If the armor school had been involved it would have been an even better design.
@@goforbroke4428 For example why do you think the thermals on the M1 green vs the Bradleys are red? Because its easier for people to distinquish shades of green than red. Everything on the GPS/TIS in the gunner's station is set up almost perfectly. Your right hand stays on the cadillacs while your left handles easily everything else. The ammo select switch on the M1/M1A1 has SABOT all the way on the left of the sweep and HEAT all the way on the right. I prefer the TC's over ride on the M1A2 vs the M1A1 SA. The palm switch on the A1s is directly in your palm vs on the A2 its just you bottom 3 fingers.
In the current state of the game we don't have the exact "to be better in unit". After all, it's just about how fast u'll spot and aim the enemy tank and just destroy him. That's why M1 and Leopard 2 will be the best tanks in game ever. They just have pretty everything in terms of such gameplay, meanwhile even T-80B will have lack of thermals and armor protection, comparing to IPM1. So, Soviets are for those who like challenge.
I prefer the challenge to be out numbered in my M1. Since the T-64 now has ammo that will pen the M1 somewhat consistently it makes you work just a little bit better on positioning than before. The lack of an LRF on the T-64 is really what holds it back since its range finder is way worse than the one on the M60A1.
A real TC, that is completely and utterly brain washed into NATO D riding. Interesting but I suppose that's half the "training". Just endless dehumanization of the enemy and saying we are the best. Two things which only get your shit rocked in the real world.
dunno what u talking about dog, bro seens to equally know westoid and eastoid hardware, hell many balkan and baltic countrys have a vast array of both soviet and nato tanks so people who know both definitly do exist, yeah there is the argument that they don't know stuff past the 90's but modern tanks seemingly have been in "prototype" phase since those times and most "felt" changes imo are the FCS systems and these new fancy gen 3 thermals and whatnot, look im not a tank specialist, but im mildly confident that neither are you, also the T80 is now in the game and the FCS on that thing is pretty good ngl.
The use of smoke screens to cover attack is a brilliant touch. You would not get this in more arcade-y tank games.
Not really sure where “Russian junk” is coming from. These machines are designed for specific purposes that are very different from western vehicles.
Some are even pretty sophisticated. The t64 was the first mass produced tank with composite armor. The bmp1, even with all of its issues, was revolutionary at the time it was first produced. The first real IFV.
The Soviets never really thought of how one of their tanks is 1v1 superior to a nato tank. That isn’t the point. They are designed to function within the very specific framework of their doctrine. Calling for speed and large numbers in massed attacks.
Even with that, the Soviets probably had an edge on our tanks up until the Abrams. Which was obviously an incredible vehicle.
Russian/Soviet tanks are built to be good as a unit. Western tanks are built to be good by themselves
@@zagstrukk Yeah, pretty much. NATO tanks are definitely built to be able to operate during delaying actions and in defense while under a massed attack on a large front and act in a much more independent fashion. And yes, 1v1 most nato tanks are going to do better than a Soviet tank, at least in the mid 70s and 80s. Better optics, FCS, etc etc. the Soviets weren’t delusional, they understood that well and it reflects in their documentation of their doctrine. But their lesson from ww2 is that no matter how good your vehicle, it’s always going to take massive attrition. So it’s better to have loads of vehicles that are good enough as opposed to a small number of excellent vehicles
@@Rokaize their is one spot to where you are wrong. The Leopard and challenger are built to play defense. The M1 was built for running and gunning. Which is exactly what happened in 1991
@@zagstrukk Yeah true but the doctrine at the time wasn’t really for an offensive. Local, limited counterattacks sure, but nato knew it was going to have to play defense at least in the opening stages. With a lot of delaying actions and falling back to other defenses trying to slow down the Soviets and inflict attrition.
Against the Soviet military I don’t think running and gunning like 1991 would work, especially since many m1s in the 70s and 80s were still using 105mm guns and didn’t have the heavy armor (HA) upgrade.
Just bear in mind that the primary method of defending against tanks in NATO was to actually use TOWs and other ATGMs. It wasn’t until abrams that they were confident in their ability to handle Soviet armor with tanks. But even then, they knew eventually their abrams forces would face severe losses eventually. Which is pretty openly discussed in a lot of the unclassified documentation on this from the time period.
Against the Iraqi army that has been pummeled into oblivion by aircraft? Sure it can definitely run and gun in that situation as we all saw.
You do realize that the US military of 91 took down the 4th largest armor force in less than 4 days. The air force didn't really do all that much in terms of damage. The ground forces though that another story
Dang those Bradleys can eat some 30mm from the front huh
Hmm almost like Americans know how to make decent equipment.
Bradleys have survivability in the mind of the designers
@@Vincent98987 To a degree yes, only issue is that it was designed by the infantry school who has zero clue on how to design AFV/IFVs. If the armor school had been involved it would have been an even better design.
@@zagstrukkyeah tru, especially when the infantry school was obsessed with light bullshit back in the 80s.
@@goforbroke4428 For example why do you think the thermals on the M1 green vs the Bradleys are red? Because its easier for people to distinquish shades of green than red. Everything on the GPS/TIS in the gunner's station is set up almost perfectly. Your right hand stays on the cadillacs while your left handles easily everything else. The ammo select switch on the M1/M1A1 has SABOT all the way on the left of the sweep and HEAT all the way on the right. I prefer the TC's over ride on the M1A2 vs the M1A1 SA. The palm switch on the A1s is directly in your palm vs on the A2 its just you bottom 3 fingers.
Have you tried the malyutka missiles on the bmp-1? It's actual torture.
It totally is, lol!
Yes I have. Doesn't mean I enjoy using Warsaw Pact/Soviet/Russian junk.
malûtka was an early ATGM with a micro joystick
thats MCLOS missiles for you
@@zagstrukkearly western ATGMS used mclos aswell lol the malyutka entered service where atgms were a new thing
i like the voice acting i hope that in the future they add more voice lines
In the current state of the game we don't have the exact "to be better in unit". After all, it's just about how fast u'll spot and aim the enemy tank and just destroy him. That's why M1 and Leopard 2 will be the best tanks in game ever. They just have pretty everything in terms of such gameplay, meanwhile even T-80B will have lack of thermals and armor protection, comparing to IPM1. So, Soviets are for those who like challenge.
I prefer the challenge to be out numbered in my M1. Since the T-64 now has ammo that will pen the M1 somewhat consistently it makes you work just a little bit better on positioning than before. The lack of an LRF on the T-64 is really what holds it back since its range finder is way worse than the one on the M60A1.
BMP series… Anything heavier than 50cal touching you, you either immobilized or burst in flame. Commander view is half blocked by turret🤦♂️
that problem only happens in bmp-1, bmp-2 the commander view is on the turret
@@busted2131still, a damned folded periscope
It's Russian junk what do you expect?
@@zagstrukkmore vodka with equal levels of design ineptitude to much to ask?
@@high633 Still a trash Russian piece of junk as the Ukrainian conflict has shown.
why didn't they just introduce T-80s something comparable to M1 abrams
They will in time be patient there's like 6 people working on this game
@@zagstrukk that's amazing, only 6 person I wish there are double that amount
@@m_zbrv3967 Welp, your wish became true now!
A real TC, that is completely and utterly brain washed into NATO D riding. Interesting but I suppose that's half the "training". Just endless dehumanization of the enemy and saying we are the best. Two things which only get your shit rocked in the real world.
What do you mean by the real world?
dunno what u talking about dog, bro seens to equally know westoid and eastoid hardware, hell many balkan and baltic countrys have a vast array of both soviet and nato tanks so people who know both definitly do exist, yeah there is the argument that they don't know stuff past the 90's but modern tanks seemingly have been in "prototype" phase since those times and most "felt" changes imo are the FCS systems and these new fancy gen 3 thermals and whatnot, look im not a tank specialist, but im mildly confident that neither are you, also the T80 is now in the game and the FCS on that thing is pretty good ngl.
why are you so upset
@@leunreadablypossible6835 im not sure who said im upset
@@toninhosoldierhelmet4033 sure you know