downsizing US military

[Al B. Sure!]

T34 was basically a truck with sloped armor.

What towing capability did it have? That's assuming the Soviets had enough trailers.

Regardless, using tanks as trucks would be incredibly inefficient in terms of fuel usage and maintenance. And by inefficient, I mean by a considerable order of magnitude.

[Sava]

What towing capability did it have? That's assuming the Soviets had enough trailers.

Regardless, using tanks as trucks would be incredibly inefficient in terms of fuel usage and maintenance.

You aren't Serb, but I'll take it.

Quick search reveals:

As production progressed, both the Poles Czechs also designed a number of tank recovery variants based on the T-34. These included:



· A „Primitive” tank recovery vehicle that was essentially a T-34 chassis without a turret that had been equipped with a tow bar.

· The CW-34 (designed and built in Chechoslovakia), which had a lift/towing capacity of 30 tons using a lifter tug. It was armed with a 7.62mm machine gun.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/t34-851.htm

[Al B. Sure!]

That's the Poles and Czechs after the war and it looks like that's just for armor recovery. Our M88A2 Hercules' are basically M60 tanks made to repair and recover Abrams tanks.

But that's not what I was asking. I'm talking about motor transport capability; moving men and materiel. We had 12x the logistical capacity.

That's not a small difference. Fighting a conventional war, Russia mightaswell have been in the stone age.


And that's not even mentioning shipping. We could move so much materiel unopposed once we took some Baltic ports.

[Sava]

Oh I get it. You asked for towing capacity and I quoted towing capacity.

You are on fire tonight!

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh I get it. You asked for towing capacity and I quoted towing capacity.

You are on fire tonight!

You want to use an armored repair and recovery vehicle to tow flat-bed trailers?

I said very specifically:

What towing capability did it have? That's assuming the Soviets had enough trailers.

Regardless, using tanks as trucks would be incredibly inefficient in terms of fuel usage and maintenance. And by inefficient, I mean by a considerable order of magnitude.

Do I really need to break down why you have Ben-like levels of reading comprehension or now that I re-posted it you see your mistake?

[Sava]

Oh sorry. You asked for towing capability and I posted capacity.

And pro-tip, calling people Ben-like doesn't make you any less stupid.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh sorry. You asked for towing capability and I posted capacity.

And pro-tip, calling people Ben-like doesn't make you any less stupid.

Recovering a vehicle is not the same thing as towing a flatbed trailer.

What we established is T34's are not substitutes for trucks. Which should be obvious.

This statement:

T34 was basically a truck with sloped armor.

Is absolutely nonsensical. What makes a T34 'basically a truck'?

A truck, the GMC CCKW towing a flatbed trailer:


You're telling me it EVER makes sense to use T34's in that way?


The point is the Soviets simply did not have enough trucks to compete with the US in a conventional war.

[Serb]

Most of your trucks were used for logistics inside the US, you moron. They had no impact on European theater of war. If the US attacks its ally in 1945, US gets utterly crushed in Europe within two weeks. Simple as that. You use last a couple of nukes you had in 1945, we use chem warfare on your ally UK. That's why it never happened. Your military people knew that perfectly - you had no chance, motherf*ckers.

[Ben Kenobi]

And pro-tip, calling people Ben-like doesn't make you any less stupid.

Apparently Albert believes your comprehension has improved.

[Sava]

You're telling me it EVER makes sense to use T34's in that way?

I'm just trolling Serb. I don't know what kind of imaginary argument you are having with yourself.

But it's realllllly fun to watch.

Fun fact, I read today that 1 out of every 4 soldiers has an untreated mental illness even before joining the military.

[onodera]

Albie, the whole Europe used trains for troop movements, not trucks. Have you seen Russian roads? Your thousands of trucks would be a dead weight.

[Sava]

T34 would make a better truck in Russian terrain.

[pchang]

Halftracks

[Hauldren Collider]

And what has Russian air power ever done? Get killed by Americans 10:1?

Oh yeah, the Hind mowed down Afghan civilians. Wow. Big deal.

And Russian naval air power? Hah! Russia doesn't even have any real carriers. You have those little stupid carriers with ramps... just like the Euros.

Be fair, the French have a real carrier, when it isn't stuck in port for repairs. But they're the only ones.

[Hauldren Collider]

The Soviet navy was always terrible. They had OK submarines but nothing near as advanced as ours. But their surface fleet was and is pathetic. Russia also has basically no strategically located ports--all of them are capable of being bottled up at choke points. Even Vladivistok can be bottled up in the Sea of Japan.