Were Soviet Tanks Ever Better Than Western Tanks?

[FriendlyFire]

It's a myth that USSR collapsed because of too high military spendings. There are countries which have it much higher and continue to exist. Including USSR itself in 50-60s

Soviet leadership at that time was looking at its defence budget on paper and wondering how they would be able to maintain equality with the west
In reality, large sections of the paper budget for other items were actually for defence budget. upwards of 20% GDP, Yank was spending 5%

 

[Commodore]

*That's why Japan spends so much money building local (and often inferior) version of US military equipment. Instead of just buying our fighters, tanks, or warships which they easily could under the defense treaty, Japan collaborates with the US to create domestic versions. Japan knows that eventually the defense treaty will fray, so they want to capacity to fully remilitarize within a decade

India is kinda doing the same thing. They are building up their own domestic military industry with their own domestic designs so they don't have to rely as much on foreign suppliers like the US and Russia.

 

[Zardnaar]

India is kinda doing the same thing. They are building up their own domestic military industry with their own domestic designs so they don't have to rely as much on foreign suppliers like the US and Russia.

Makes sense.

If you buy weapons you're effectively paying someone else's bills.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's a myth that USSR collapsed because of too high military spendings. There are countries which have it much higher and continue to exist. Including USSR itself in 50-60s

Soviet records not regarded very well in the west as they were often lying to themselves.

See the earlier comment about USSR spending 20% vs USA 5%. That's only GDP, actual cash/resources us something else.

The rouble was worthless internationally so they had to use foreign currency to import food. And they were always short of that as well.

That's on top of things like nuclear spending. NATO never had a plan to invade USSR beyond my be lobbing nukes.

Since Soviets also had them as well it never came to that thankfully.

Now USA is having similar problems, compare with say other NATO countries that spent less on the military and more on healthcare etc.

 

[Hrothbern]

Makes sense.

If you buy weapons you're effectively paying someone else's bills.

But buying weapons from another country is also a way to balance the trade balance with another country and confirm from your side a stronger willingness for cooperation.

This at least has so far always been the Dutch Foreign Affairs strategy for buying US fighter aircraft fron starfighters, F-16 to F-35. Not even mentioning the ease and reliability of shared operations.

 

[Zardnaar]

USSR collapsed because the leadership gave up, was my impression.

Not unlike the "velvet divorce" of czechoslovakia into two countries even though the population wanted to stay together.

They kind of did but true believers in Communism kinda disappeared after Stalin. Then you're just left with a stagnating authoritarian regime.

 

[Zardnaar]

But buying weapons from another country is also a way to balance the trade balance with another country and confirm from your side a stronger willingness for cooperation.

This at least has so far always been the Durch Foreign Affairs strategy for buying US fighter aircraft fron starfighters, F-16 to F-35. Not even mentioning the ease and reliability of shared operations.

Yeah you have to buy some and if you can't manufacture it cheaply it's not a terrible option.

Once again depends on how much you want to spend. NZ bought a battlecruiser once cost 2 million pounds. Government revenue 10 million pounds.

They finished paying for it in the 30s and scrapped it 1927 iirc. Still 50 million pounds later WW1 was cheap!!!!! Grandad's house was 500 pounds by comparison in the 40s.

 

[Commodore]

Now USA is having similar problems, compare with say other NATO countries that spent less on the military and more on healthcare etc

Not really. We spend about 3.4% of our GDP on the military. That's higher than the current global average of around 2% or so, but still lower than the Soviet's 20% and even our own Cold War spending of 5%. So military spending is not really the source of any problems in the US.

 

[Hrothbern]

Yeah you have to buy some and if you can't manufacture it cheaply it's not a terrible option.

Once again depends on how much you want to spend. NZ bought a battlecruiser once cost 2 million pounds. Government revenue 10 million pounds.

They finished paying for it in the 30s and scrapped it 1927 iirc. Still 50 million pounds later WW1 was cheap!!!!! Grandad's house was 500 pounds by comparison.

Considering the Swedish Saab Viggen... we had money enough to build up our own fighter aircraft industry sector and had Fokker as base.
Having your own little military-industrial complex is an easy entry for state aid into high end civil industry sectors because of the many spin-offs. General GDP level from more knowledge and applied knowledge benefitting as well.
And during the post-starfighter era up to recently we had always so much unemployment that such an industry would not take away workers from civil industry. Meaning that the real cost for government would be very low because we pay already unemployed people at high social security cost level.
It is only since 2015 or so that we had more vacancies than unemployed. But even in that scenario you can as government increase productivity of existing economic sectors to push out workers from existing activities to generate enough workers for new activities asking for workers as shown by that high amount of vacancies. Having our own small military aircraft industry would even have been helpful for that.

=> Our choices in buying US stuff were mainly political.

 

[red_elk]

Soviet records not regarded very well in the west as they were often lying to themselves.

I didn't say anything about Soviet records. I said military spendings were not the reason of collapse.

 

[Phrossack]

Considering the Swedish Saab Viggen... we had money enough to build up our own fighter aircraft industry sector and had Fokker as base.
Having your own little military-industrial complex is an easy entry for state aid into high end civil industry sectors because of the many spin-offs. General GDP level from more knowledge and applied knowledge benefitting as well.
And during the post-starfighter era up to recently we had always so much unemployment that such an industry would not take away workers from civil industry. Meaning that the real cost for government would be very low because we pay already unemployed people at high social security cost level.
It is only since 2015 or so that we had more vacancies than unemployed. But even in that scenario you can as government increase productivity of existing economic sectors to push out workers from existing activities to generate enough workers for new activities asking for workers as shown by that high amount of vacancies. Having our own small military aircraft industry would even have been helpful for that.

=> Our choices in buying US stuff were mainly political.

Developing a domestic Dutch arms industry would have been very tricky. Sweden has its own - mostly - but that's costly. New fighters are so extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming to design and build that only a single-digit number of countries can go it alone, and that number is dropping. Even Japan and South Korea struggle and wanted foreign partners. The US has lots of partners for the F-35. Russia tried to get India on board with a fighter project but last I read, it fell through, and the Su-57 isn't really progressing much. By now I think the only countries that could successfully develop their own fighters with no foreign partners would be the US, China, and possibly Russia. We'll see about Japan and South Korea but I suspect SK will find a partner or get F-35s.

 

[Hrothbern]

Developing a domestic Dutch arms industry would have been very tricky. Sweden has its own - mostly - but that's costly. New fighters are so extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming to design and build that only a single-digit number of countries can go it alone, and that number is dropping. Even Japan and South Korea struggle and wanted foreign partners. The US has lots of partners for the F-35. Russia tried to get India on board with a fighter project but last I read, it fell through, and the Su-57 isn't really progressing much. By now I think the only countries that could successfully develop their own fighters with no foreign partners would be the US, China, and possibly Russia. We'll see about Japan and South Korea but I suspect SK will find a partner or get F-35s.

Purely direct economical I agree.
And re arms building frigates more fitting.
Having an entry for state aid is really nice for a high end industrial nation like the Netherlands because of all the spin-offs and gaming the WTO restrictions on state aid.
(you do not see much of high end tech news from the Netherlands in international newsmedia, but there is lots of it)

But more practical... there are enough other entries for high end economy boosting in the Netherlands which are being used, though imo more is needed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not really. We spend about 3.4% of our GDP on the military. That's higher than the current global average of around 2% or so, but still lower than the Soviet's 20% and even our own Cold War spending of 5%. So military spending is not really the source of any problems in the US.

More due to opportunity cost as spending in the military is a vastly bigger % of government revenue.

Throw in indirect costs (pensions) and US passed a trillion dollars a year a decade or so a go iirc.

That's almost 1/3rd of government revenue.

It's roughly equivalent proportionally to our health budget iirc.

Military spending can drive economic growth it's usually not that efficient (better than nothing though).

 

[Hrothbern]

Military spending can drive economic growth it's usually not that efficient (better than nothing though).

Any hard facts on that ?
There is a general discussion on how useful the Apollo program was and many people agree that it had many positives.
But ARPA existed already since 1958 (Eisenhower) en Apollo was just a booster addon of ARPA.

 

[Zardnaar]

Any hard facts on that ?
There is a general discussion on how useful the Apollo program was and many people agree that it had many positives.
But ARPA existed already since 1958 (Eisenhower) en Apollo was just a booster addon of ARPA.

Yes, military spending was quite good for Korea via Japan and USA.

Manchukuo built more steel than Japan itself at one point and China inherited it.

And military spending ended the great depression. A similar amount spent in non military stuff probably would have done the same thing.

Iirc wages doubled in the USA during the war years.

 

[r16]

the Red Army poised to attack in an instant kept the world peace because they could cross the Rheine . Forcing the West to spend money on defence and fear the Nuclear Holocaust it would cause . Leaving less money to foment trouble by other means . Meaning Russian tanks built strictly for offence defended their country and Communist order by default . The Soviet meltdown happened with the unique problems of transformation into a defensive strategy . Chips and Flankers also required some stamina from people , of sort the Russian leadership doubted could be possible again , with the Russian leaders invariably being veterans of WW ll . They needed a market economy with enough consumers to maintain electronic balance with the West , it didn't come cheap .

 

[Zardnaar]

the Red Army poised to attack in an instant kept the world peace because they could cross the Rheine . Forcing the West to spend money on defence and fear the Nuclear Holocaust it would cause . Leaving less money to foment trouble by other means . Meaning Russian tanks built strictly for offence defended their country and Communist order by default . The Soviet meltdown happened with the unique problems of transformation into a defensive strategy . Chips and Flankers also required some stamina from people , of sort the Russian leadership doubted could be possible again , with the Russian leaders invariably being veterans of WW ll . They needed a market economy with enough consumers to maintain electronic balance with the West , it didn't come cheap .

There was only one Soviet leader born in the It USSR and he was the last one.

The rest were born in the Russian Empire.

 

[r16]

even better . They know how people react when the war lasts too long or comes too close .

edit : correction of lats into lasts

 

[Zardnaar]

Pt 2 Soviet Mediums and Heavies.

T-34s getting pwned by Pz38's.

 

[FriendlyFire]

T-34s getting pwned by Pz38's.

I remember that Panzer Ace Otto Carius? took out 4 T-34s using a Stugg3 with the short barrel in a single engagement.
The poor vision, insufficient training, and non existent tactics were short comings that soviet werent able to overcome with sheer numbers and better tanks.
Later on, a T-34 would drive right past hes Tiger tank at close range and was oblivious to it existence because the tank commander had buttoned up (because it was probably cold).