NATO vs Soviet tanks - which are better?

The Cold War, a time of geopolitical tensions and ideological rivalry between the Soviet Union and the Western powers, witnessed a fierce competition in various aspects of military strategy. Tank doctrine, specifically, played a crucial role in shaping the balance of power during this era. By understanding the contrasting approaches taken by the Soviet Union and the Western powers, we gain valuable insights into the dynamics of the Cold War conflict.

Throughout this video, we aim to uncover the key factors that set apart the Soviet and Western tank strategies. By analysing their military doctrines, technological advancements, and historical conflicts, we provide you with a comprehensive understanding of this critical aspect of Cold War history.

In the early years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union adopted a doctrine that emphasized the numerical superiority of their tank forces. Their strategy revolved around the concept of massed tank formations, with an emphasis on quantity over quality. The Soviet tanks, such as the T-34 and later the T-55, were designed to be simple, rugged, and easily mass-produced. This approach allowed them to rapidly deploy large armoured forces, overwhelming their opponents with sheer numbers.

In contrast, the Western powers, led by NATO, focused on technological superiority and combined arms warfare. Their tank doctrine aimed to leverage advanced technology, such as superior fire control systems, improved armour protection, and more accurate ammunition. The Western tanks, like the American M60 and the British Centurion, were designed to provide the crews with enhanced situational awareness and firepower, ensuring a lethal edge on the battlefield.

The geopolitical landscape of the Cold War also influenced the contrasting tank doctrines. The Soviet Union, facing the vast expanse of Eastern Europe, had to prepare for potential large-scale land-based conflicts. Their doctrine was influenced by the need to defend against possible invasions and maintain control over their satellite states. On the other hand, the Western powers, primarily the United States, focused on global power projection and expeditionary warfare. Their tank doctrine incorporated the ability to rapidly deploy and operate effectively in different theatres around the world.

Historical conflicts served as testing grounds for the divergent tank doctrines. One notable example is the Battle of Kursk in 1943, where the Soviet Union's massed tank formations clashed with the German forces. The battle showcased the effectiveness of the Soviet doctrine in a defensive scenario, as their sheer numbers overwhelmed the German armour. In contrast, the Western powers demonstrated their doctrine's strengths during the Gulf War in 1991, where technologically advanced tanks like the American M1 Abrams proved decisive against the Iraqi forces.

Throughout this video, we present a detailed analysis of the Soviet and Western tank doctrines, examining their strategies, tactics, and technological advancements. We showcase archival footage, expert interviews, and visually engaging graphics to bring the Cold War's tank warfare to life. Whether you're a history enthusiast, a military buff, or a student of military strategy, this video offers a comprehensive exploration of what set apart Soviet and Western tank doctrine during the Cold War.

Join us on this captivating journey into the realm of armoured warfare and gain valuable insights into "What Sets Apart Soviet and Western Tank Doctrine in the Cold War?" Hit the play button now and embark on a captivating exploration of Cold War history. Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe to our channel for more exciting historical content.

Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Armourgeddon videos.

#armourgeddon #tantmuseum #tanks #m3a1

[mrpirate]

I served in BAOR from '85-'89. Loving the informative and understandable take on cold war tactics

[jackg-pupg]

Well done alex ❤ keep up the good work and this is my favourite video yet 👏

[steve]

Always good video, my two peneth I think shear weight of numbers wins out, battle of Kursk superior Tiger run out of shell's the T34 kept coming.

[nuke]

this channel is amazing, it'll blow up one day, remember my words

[yoloman]

Soviet doctrine emphasized the medium tank, meaning a tank between 35-40 tons. The heavy tank development stopped with the IS-3 and all tanks after, the T-54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 were all designed with this weight limit in mind. They balanced the armor, firepower, and mobility of their tanks to match or surpass NATO tanks all while weighing almost the same as their predecessors thanks to weight savings from groundbreaking mass deployment of autoloaders and advanced composite armors starting with the T-64. Generally there were two types of tanks, the advanced tanks which were more complex and had new pioneering innovations like the T-64, which also had simpler mobilization counterparts in the T-72 which were easier to build and maintain. Built for conscripts Soviet tanks were made easy to use and rugged and often used advanced technologies for ease of use with mass deployment of stabilizers and ATGMs in the 60s. A low profile was also regarded as a large factor in Soviet design. The weight limit also had its share of problems, mainly cramped internal compartments and a reduction in crew size to 3 men.

NATO was rather disorganized with each nation doing its own thing. The M60 project by the US rejected composite armor and gun stabilization for much of its early life but thanks to its large roomy interior and pressure from Soviet advancements would receive many upgrade packages with better armor, thermal sights, and stabilizers once the US felt a technology was mature enough. Cold War US projects were decades late to the party compared to the more cohesive Soviet mechanized doctrine, but produced much more refined and advanced vehicles when they eventually were completed. Countries like Germany and France decided to avoid the armor vs arms race in the 60s and 70s, but the Soviets made them largely obsolete them with the mass fielding of anti-tank rockets and AT guided missiles to infantry and mechanized fighting vehicles as well as ever increasing tank firepower so almost anything in their force could take out the lightly armored tanks. This prompted NATO as a whole to start working towards heavier and heavier MBTs weighing in above 60 tons to pack enough armor to shrug off a rain of anti-tank weapons from massed Soviet mechanized combined arms formations which moved in formations battalion sized or greater.

For roughly half the Cold War the NATO forces were built around Active Defense which entailed falling back and reforming into new defensive positions to stop the Red Tide of standing Soviet units which outnumbered them almost 2 to 1, which by all accounts was terrible against Soviet "war as a science" which specialized in repeated use of mass formations of mechanized units to exploit gaps, then mass their firepower and crush defensive positions at a rapid pace over and over deep into enemy territory. NATO switched to Air Land battle in the late 70s along with the introduction of much heavier MBTs and more advanced IFVs to match their new doctrine of local initiative to engage the enemy with support from combined arms which put them well ahead of the now destabilizing Soviet Union.

[FWildcat]

5:35 guess the french learned an important lesson from ww2. Post war their tank forces are impressive

[oleof]

Doesn't matter who have more drone teams now.

[ChallengerMBT]

I love the videos keep them up by the way im offering elon musks wallet for your t55😅

[jammiedodger]

Don’t use the European Union flag to represent Europe.