252
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
252 points (98.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6573 readers
413 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Were Soviet tanks bad? I thought they were serviceable, cheap, sort of utilitarian, maybe not the highest caliber but you could make tons of them and that was the point. Like beetles
Well, it depends on the doctrine. When you use a T tank with western doctrine (survivability>number) you have to prop them up massively. And then they become even harder to service and use than any western tank.
Yeah, I thought the doctrine was “crunch all you want, we’ll make more”
Same as with Russian soldiers now
Edit: and always before
That was always the case, the Russians behave like they grow soldiers like potatoes.
Russia likes to coerce other people's potatoes into being cannon fodder too.
They used similar tactics to everyone in WWII. The human wave thing was partly derived from the accounts of ex-Nazis who were sore losers, AskHistorians had an answer about it. I don't know about Afghanistan, but that was a different kind of war.
Now, yeah. And it's going about as well as you'd expect.
They used the tactic in WW1 as well
Soviet tanks were usually very good tankwise, but lacking in softer stats. Their big problems were that they needed to arm a huge conscript (or even worse, draftee) army, so they hoarded everything past obsolescence and most of it was below standard (T-62 wasn't that good even back then, but they're still in service) and the lagging electronics industry meaning their night sights, FCS, and in particular thermals were awful. There's solid argument that until the advent of NATO "box" tanks and the Rheinmetall 120mm soviet designs were better than everyone elses, but beyond they were quickly overtaken.
You have some right points, but also in one of the most used tanks (I forgot which one), crew were attaching a pillow to a sharp metal corner that you would hit with your head all the time. I'd call that utilitarian, as head trauma was avoidable in some cases.
AFAIK they aren't. Western tanks are usually more optimised to be serviced in the field which makes them larger to be able to easily get to all the parts. Soviet tanks are more optimised on a lower profile while trying to cram as much stuff in there as possible.
Yeah, "cheap"