Defence Q&A Which is superior? Russian tanks or NATO tanks?

[Tonyukuk]

I just noticed this new section so I thought I'd ask the first question.

As we know, the west leads in many areas, especially when it comes to air assets... But one strange thing which stands out is that Russian tanks are lighter, all have autoloaders and in general the armor design APPEARS better. But how do the two actually compare? Let's use the T-14 against the best western tanks in this to make a fair comparison, thanks.

 

[Manomed]

Not everything had changed since ww2, some still holds true today.

That costed you hard in the korean conflict

 

[Gary]

Lmao chinese mentality We ain't in the WW2 era fella

Correct, Iraq deploys more armor than the coalition in Desert Storm.

We know what happens next.

 

[xizhimen]

Correct, Iraq deploys more armor than the coalition in Desert Storm.

We know what happens next.

Don't know it for sure, but I m talking tank to tank battle without involving in other weapons, Iraq didn't have enough air cover to its tanks. The last tank to tank battle could be in Kursk.

 

[xizhimen]

That costed you hard in the korean conflict

But we still managed to push US from our border to half way through Korea.

 

[500]

Don't know it for sure, but I m talking tank to tank battle without involving in other weapons, Iraq didn't have enough air cover to its tanks. The last tank to tank battle could be in Kursk.

Yom Kippur war involved large tank to tank battles.

 

[Ryder]

But we still managed to push US from our border to half way through Korea.

Still led to a stalemate. I would not claim victory to be honest as the Chinese offensive despite pushing the Americans out have lost steam once they reached South Korea.

The Chinese no doubt saved NK from complete defeat.

 

[xizhimen]

Still led to a stalemate. I would not claim victory to be honest as the Chinese offensive despite pushing the Americans out have lost steam once they reached South Korea.

China doesn't want to see an unified Korea in the first place, after 38th parallel, all Chinese offensives were half hearted at most.

 

[Loban]

There is no clear winner. Russian and NATO tanks are built for different doctrines. Russian designs trade crew safety and comfort for smaller size, autoloaders and offensive mobility, which looks good on paper but carries real battlefield risks. NATO tanks focus on crew survivability, sensors, fire control and integration with air and drone support.

In modern war, tanks rarely fight tank vs tank. What matters more is air superiority, drones, ATGMs, logistics and training. A Leopard or Abrams in a NATO system will usually outperform a Russian tank, while a Russian tank only makes sense when used in mass under its own doctrine. The system around the tank decides more than the tank itself.

 

[mehmed beg]

There is no clear winner. Russian and NATO tanks are built for different doctrines. Russian designs trade crew safety and comfort for smaller size, autoloaders and offensive mobility, which looks good on paper but carries real battlefield risks. NATO tanks focus on crew survivability, sensors, fire control and integration with air and drone support.

In modern war, tanks rarely fight tank vs tank. What matters more is air superiority, drones, ATGMs, logistics and training. A Leopard or Abrams in a NATO system will usually outperform a Russian tank, while a Russian tank only makes sense when used in mass under its own doctrine. The system around the tank decides more than the tank itself.

I wish if French sent Le Clerk tanks . I think, those tanks are most interesting. Le Clerc combines both , Western and Russian doctrine