Are Russian or Western tanks better?

If you are interested in tanks, you have probably browsed the internet for reviews and evaluations of tanks. In such reviews, almost every tank is compared with other tanks, but mostly Russian tanks are compared with Western tanks. Since the commentators are Westerners, there are many stories about how much better Western tanks are compared to Russian tanks.

But is this true?

My answer is ‘both true and false’.

If you say, ‘How can this be?’ let me explain. 

When comparing tanks in these comments, technical aspects such as the range of the cannon, the characteristics of the weapons on it, armour protection, engine power, range of movement and maximum speed are taken into account. Looking at these and similar concrete technical values, it is true that Russian tanks such as the T-72, which is currently the most widely used Russian tank, are weak in many respects compared to advanced models of Western tanks (M1 Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, etc.). 

It may also be true that, due to the physical structure of the tank, Russian tanks have a worse crew survival rate than Western tanks. It is also true that far more Russian tanks were shot down on the battlefield than Western tanks. However, despite all this, it is not possible to say that Western tanks are much better than Russian tanks. 

A tank is a weapon/tool developed to win a war. Therefore, in order to decide which tank is better, it is necessary to take into account how much superiority these tanks provide to the armies that have them in winning the war and how much they contribute to the victory. This contribution depends on many factors.

For example, in World War II, the German Panther V and Tiger I tanks were much more technically advanced than the tanks of Russia and its allies. During the Battle of Kursk in 1943, the battle between the Russian and German armies in which the largest number of tanks were destroyed in a single battle in history, the Panther tanks were able to hit any Soviet armoured vehicle from a long distance and had a very high accuracy rate. The Panther V was superior to many tanks of its period not only in terms of firepower but also in terms of armour protection and mobility.

The German Tiger I tanks were not far behind them. In fact, Tiger I's were more powerful than not only Russian tanks but also all other tanks in terms of accuracy and lethality. According to claims, it was necessary to sacrifice at least 4 Sherman tanks to destroy a Tiger tank. In T-34s, this figure was sometimes much higher. For example, in the Battle of Kursk, a single Tiger I tank is said to have destroyed 22 T-34 Russian tanks and wounded a tank until it was destroyed. 

The most important feature of the Tiger I tank was its 88 mm gun, which could be rotated with a hydraulic system. This gun had a very good optical system. It could hit distant and moving targets very successfully. It was seen to hit targets even 3000 metres away. Enemy tanks had to get very close to penetrate its thick armour.

Another characteristic of the Tiger was its psychological effect. The Tiger became so legendary during the war that Allied armoured units would move en masse as they passed through forested areas. Because at any moment there was the possibility of a Tiger tank opening fire from behind a tree. This possibility was one of the obstacles that cost the Allies time in Normandy and beyond.

However, the German tanks also had some major problems. For example, the Panther V had a very short engine life (about 1000 kilometres) and maintenance was very time consuming. The production process was also very long. This prevented the production of as many tanks as needed on time. For example, this tank was intended to counter the T-34 Russian tank, but because of the long production time, only about 250 Panther V tanks could be sent to the Eastern Front in September 1944.  

The number of Panthers was further reduced in a short time due to technical failures. According to a 20 July 1943 report by the German Army Command, after the Battle of Kursk only 41 Panther V tanks were available for combat. The rest were damaged, badly damaged or completely destroyed. 

The Tiger I, like the Panther V, was a product of over-engineering, using expensive materials and labour-intensive production methods. On the other hand, the Tiger suffered from a high number of track failures and breakdowns. Due to its high fuel consumption, its range was limited and maintenance was quite expensive. 

It was heavy and difficult to transport. Rain, mud, ice and snow severely restricted its mobility. Since its overlapping tracks were often jammed due to frostbite, it had problems moving. This was a major problem on the Eastern Front during the muddy spring and autumn seasons and during extremely cold periods.

Opposing the German tanks on the Eastern Front was the T-34, a Russian-made medium-class tank. The front hull design of this tank, which had a very simple structure, was designed at an angle. In this way, the tank could ricochet almost half of the shells hit. 

The Tigers, on the contrary, had an almost 90-degree hull. For this reason, the front side was covered with 100 mm armour and the sides were covered with 80 mm armour. Since this armour made the tank heavier, a 700 horsepower engine was used to move the heavy hull of the tank. As the weight increased fuel consumption, it created logistical problems.

The Tiger was so complex that very few were produced during the war. One of the most important problems of the Tiger was that it took a long time to maintain. Tanks that broke down during the battle or were slightly damaged could not be repaired in a short time. For this reason, the Germans had to leave many tanks on the battlefield.

The T-34 tank in the service of the Red Army was the most produced tank of the war. Because while 30,000 production hours were spent for a Tiger, the T-34 could be produced in almost one tenth of this production time. The Russians could produce 1200 T-34s every month and send them to the front. For this reason, there were always enough T-34 tanks on the battlefield, although it was the tank with the highest casualties during the war with 44,900 casualties. 

The T-34s were impressive with their effective armour and wide tracks that could navigate difficult muddy terrain. The German army's 37mm PAK 36 and 50mm PAK 38 anti-tank guns could do almost no damage to the T-34s. Only hits on the underside of the turret could cause serious damage. The German 88mm anti-tank gun was also used effectively against the T-34s.

The T-34 tank also had many shortcomings. The most important problem was that many tanks were lost before entering the battle due to transmission failures. Only company commander tanks had radio systems. Unlike the tanks of its time, it had only 4 crew members. Therefore, the tank commander was also responsible for loading the shells. 

Another factor that prevented the tank commander from focusing on the battle and controlling the environment was the lack of a hatch that opened to the outside. In addition, the tank's optical systems were incomparably worse than those of the Germans. Therefore, the T-34s had to go very close to German tanks to hit them.

Despite all this, while the Panther and Tiger tanks did not win the war for the Akmans, the T-34s were very effective in the Russian defeat of the Germans. Because even though the Panther V and Tiger I tanks had better quality and higher firepower than the T-34, the T-34 always had the advantage of numerical superiority. For example, while approximately 54,600 T-34s were produced throughout the war, the Germans were able to produce only 6,000 Panther tanks.

As can be seen from this example, the fact that a tank is technically better is not enough to say that it is the best tank. For this, the contribution of that tank to the victory must also be taken into account. In order for a tank to contribute to victory, it must be good in many aspects such as cost, production time, the possibility of mass production, simplicity, being able to adapt to the conditions of the geography where it will be used, not being too heavy, being easy to maintain, transport and supply.

In terms of these characteristics, it does not seem possible to claim that today's Western tanks are better than Russian tanks. Yes, Western tanks may be technically superior in some respects, but the fact that a T-72 tank (which is not the most advanced Russian tank) can hit an American M1 Abrams tank with a single shot shows that this superiority is not as great as exaggerated.

In addition, Western tanks have some weaknesses compared to Russian tanks. One of these weaknesses is that Western tanks are very expensive. For example, while the production cost of the US M1 Abrams A-2 tank is 10.66 million dollars, the cost of the most modern Russian tank, the T-90, is only 4.5 million dollars. 

In other words, the most modern Russian tank is less than half the price of the American tank. For this reason, each American tank must destroy more than two Russian tanks without destroying itself. Judging by the battlefield, this did not happen.

On the other hand, Western tanks are much heavier than Russian tanks. For this reason, Western tanks get stuck in the mud much more often than Russian tanks in Ukraine during the rainy season. Moreover, because of their weight, it is almost impossible to tow Western tanks with a recovery vehicle. The Russians, on the other hand, can easily tow and rescue their lighter tanks, which are therefore less likely to get stuck in the mud.

One of the most common points made by those who proclaim the superiority of Western tanks is that while thousands of Russian tanks were shot and destroyed in Ukraine, the casualties of Western tanks were much smaller. Yes, this is true, but there are incalculably fewer Western tanks on the battlefield than Russian ones. More is more and less is less. That's all there is to it. 

On the other hand, Western tanks did not exist at the beginning of the war. They entered the battlefield at a time when the war was stagnating. No one can say that in an intense conflict they will not suffer as many casualties as Russian tanks. Because they suffered a lot of casualties even in the short-term clashes they entered.

The most important issue here, in my opinion, is not whose tanks were hit and how many. It is necessary to look at who completes their tanks more quickly. Russia quickly repaired even the tanks it scrapped and put them on the battlefield. On the other hand, its annual tank production is many times higher than the annual production of all Western countries. For this reason, it is able to quickly replace its destroyed tanks with new tanks.

It is not possible for the Western countries (European countries), except for America, to reach Russia's tank production capacity in a short period of time. This is because Europe has experienced a major decline in the amount of armoured troops after the Cold War, and tank production has come to a halt due to lack of demand.  

For example, the UK produced the last Challenger-2s and closed its factories. Now, when the need for tanks emerged, it decided to produce Challenger-3s, but it does not have the capacity to produce them alone. For this reason, it agreed to jointly produce Challenger-3s with Germany. 

The situation of France and Germany, which is the only country in Europe that can produce its tanks completely by itself, is not so good. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the German manufacturer closed some of its workshops as production decreased in parallel with the rapid decline in demand for tanks. For this reason, the Germans do not have the capacity to produce enough tanks to quickly complete the tank shortage of the Western bloc. 

This situation is reminiscent of World War II. Russian tanks are simpler, cheaper, can be produced in shorter times and in large numbers, have lower production costs, and are easier to maintain, recover and repair. Western tanks are in the opposite situation. Therefore, no matter how many of its tanks are hit, Russia is able to quickly replenish its tank deficit. 

Russians have a saying, ‘Quantity is also quality.’ They say this to emphasise the importance of numerical superiority in war. In this logic, it seems that in the long run, Russia will achieve qualitative superiority in tanks (i.e. the advantage of having more and more tanks on the battlefield at all times). When this happens, the debate about which tank is the best tank will end.