Also, the Soviet Union just kept throwing bodies to the front. They recorded something like 11M military related deaths to Germany's 5M. Sheer numbers was a huge factor in their success.
50% of French forces died or were indisposed by the time they got to Moscow, and even then the Russians suffered twice as many combat deaths compared to the French. Russia as an inhospitable winter-scape killed them, not the Russian army.
WWII was similar in that the Soviets employed the meat grinder method that they currently do in Ukraine. Most countries would give up before you wipe out an entire generation. Pretty impressive what a culture that doesn't value human life can do, I guess.
Russia the country is great at war. Its military, not so much, although its still quite powerful (although evidently not as strong as it would like all of us to belive). But the country and its elements has defeated armies, dethroned kings and ended empires.
Battle at Borodino was perhaps the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic Wars up until that time, which arguably was a French strategic loss since the Russian army did not break and the French took irrecoverable losses. And it was all fought in the beginning of September.
WWII was indeed a meat grinder but the bulk majority of Soviet military losses were in the beginning years of the war when the Soviets were both caught off guard and, believe it or not, had a military manpower deficit.
If you look at their geography, it makes sense. Their biggest cities are in a flat plain which makes tanks a no brainer. It also why the USA has a strong Navy, our biggest cities are on the coasts.
The Russians don't maintain any T-34s except for parades - the huge number is made up of huge numbers of stored T-55s, T-62s and T-72s. They've actually been scrapping their old T-64s and T-80s so the total number might have dropped by a few thousand in the last couple of years.
As long as Trump doesn't pull the US out of NATO, Russia's tanks could easily be destroyed by American and EU aircraft and other tactical weapons systems. Even twenty thousand of them.
Yes, but only in the context of all-out warfare. Tanks can stay perfectly well hidden from air attacks as long as they don't move. It's only when they come out in combat that they can be destroyed from the air.
During the Cold War it was pretty much understood that the Soviet Union could easily roll through Europe with its massive tank and troop superiority. Which is why NATO relied on a policy of nuclear deterrence.
source? During NATO's brief intervention in Libya nearly 6,000 ground targets were destroyed including 600 of Qaddafi's tanks, The armored division he sent to Benghazi would have easily rolled over it... except that it was obliterated en route. Tanks are just targets when you have air superiority. Nuclear arms build-up in the Cold War was about mutually-assured destruction in the case of nuclear war; some generals and strategists talked about using tactical nukes in a conventional war, but most of them were labeled kooks. There's no situation where it would be been worth the risk of inciting a counter-strike.
Tank warfare in Libya and Europe are two totally different propositions. In Libya you have huge open areas completely without cover and very slightly populated. This leaves tanks totally vulnerable from the air.
NATO had a policy not to rule out first use of nuclear weapons while the USSR explicitly vowed that they would not be the first to fire nukes. The reason for this was that NATO didn't believe that they could defend mainland Europe from the Warsaw Pact in a conventional war.
The U.S. developed tactical nukes to repel a hypothetical Soviet tank invasion into western Germany. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap
"During the Cold War, the Fulda Gap offered one of the two obvious routes for a hypothetical Soviet tank attack on West Germany from Eastern Europe (especially from East Germany); the other route crossed the North German Plain. A third, less likely, route involved travelling up through the Danube River valley through neutral Austria. The concept of a major tank battle along the Fulda Gap became a predominant element of NATO war planning during the Cold War. With such an eventuality in mind, weapons were evolved such as nuclear tube and missile artillery, the nuclear recoilless gun/tactical launcher Davy Crockett, Special Atomic Demolition Munitions, the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, and A-10 ground attack aircraft."
Keep in mind that warfare in the 1950s and 1960s would be much different than today. Now we have satellites and smart missiles. Back then, not. So a massed tank invasion would have been quite difficult to repel.
Keep in mind that, if the USSR decided to invade Germany in the 1960s, the U.S. would not necessarily have air superiority.
Comparing the Soviet Union of the Cold War era to Libya (!) in the 2010s makes no sense.
Ukraine, Georgia or even Chechnia shows that a numbers superiority in Tanks is of very limited use in the modern battlefield, especially if they are technically obsolete like the old soviet tanks. Drones, manpads and superior, modern Tanks just take them out and the crew with it.
The little blurb that accompanies the front page feature for this quiz today said "Strictly for defensive purposes, naturally." In the case of Taiwan, that statement is accurate.
Excluding Russia, no other European country has made the list, except Greece??? The country that has been heavily indebted not so long ago? Also, it isn't exactly known for its involvement in any recent wars, so what's with those numbers?
And corruption/overprocurement. They have a big problem with that. German companies bribe the Greek officials to buy weapons and then glare at Greece's budget deficit.
Greece was occupied by Turkey for 400 years and has fought multiple wars with it ever since. Turkey is ruled by a fascist dictator which threatens daily with invasion and is backed by an increasingly fanatic nationalist population of about 85 million.
In response, Greece spends a lot on its military and maintains a very strong navy as well as airforce, has mandatory conscription for all males and some of the best elite forces in the world.
So for counties like the Marshall Islands which don't have any tanks of their own but that rely on countries like the US to provide their international defense, I guess it's tanks but no tanks.
That's a lot of tanks for a country the size of Cuba, especially since they don't have the navy equipped to ship them. What do they think is going to happen in their country?
It's obviously to counter a US invasion. I assume most of them were donated by the Soviets during the cold war, either as a response to the Bay of Pigs invasion or the later missile crisis. Likely as not, they've just been gathering dust since the USSR collapsed - dismantling them would be foolish with USA still having at best strained relations with them. In short, hostility towards USA when the USSR had a massive tank surplus and a strategic interest in the region.
This may also be the reason for Vietnam making the list in spite of not having very tank-friendly terrain.
Tanks and armoured vehicles are different things and I think that those 3000+ losses are both exaggerated and have armoured vehciles counted. The quiz only counts tanks.
Wonder how many of these tanks were purchased not for defence per se, but for the percentage the generals in charge of procurement were able to skim off the top of the contract.
WWII was similar in that the Soviets employed the meat grinder method that they currently do in Ukraine. Most countries would give up before you wipe out an entire generation. Pretty impressive what a culture that doesn't value human life can do, I guess.
WWII was indeed a meat grinder but the bulk majority of Soviet military losses were in the beginning years of the war when the Soviets were both caught off guard and, believe it or not, had a military manpower deficit.
NATO had a policy not to rule out first use of nuclear weapons while the USSR explicitly vowed that they would not be the first to fire nukes. The reason for this was that NATO didn't believe that they could defend mainland Europe from the Warsaw Pact in a conventional war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap
"During the Cold War, the Fulda Gap offered one of the two obvious routes for a hypothetical Soviet tank attack on West Germany from Eastern Europe (especially from East Germany); the other route crossed the North German Plain. A third, less likely, route involved travelling up through the Danube River valley through neutral Austria. The concept of a major tank battle along the Fulda Gap became a predominant element of NATO war planning during the Cold War. With such an eventuality in mind, weapons were evolved such as nuclear tube and missile artillery, the nuclear recoilless gun/tactical launcher Davy Crockett, Special Atomic Demolition Munitions, the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, and A-10 ground attack aircraft."
Keep in mind that, if the USSR decided to invade Germany in the 1960s, the U.S. would not necessarily have air superiority.
Comparing the Soviet Union of the Cold War era to Libya (!) in the 2010s makes no sense.
Scoring
You scored 3/15 = 20%
This beats or equals 1.5% of test takers
The average score is 12
Your high score is 3
Are actually a kind of food or a kind of a drink or is it just what you pick?
In response, Greece spends a lot on its military and maintains a very strong navy as well as airforce, has mandatory conscription for all males and some of the best elite forces in the world.
Until i typed in Israel and its neighbors lol
This may also be the reason for Vietnam making the list in spite of not having very tank-friendly terrain.
Source: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html