I wouldn't call the T-72 easy to upgrade tbh, its very space limited, and cast turrets are a nightmare to replace the composite in. For example, the T-72M4CZ required the Czechs to lengthen the hull to fit the new powerpack (although smaller powerpacks exist that don't need this now).
German style*
In regards to this specifically, the Soviets had to heavily change their squad level tactics, weapons used on the fronts and actual doctrine to fight back. More than anything it shows Soviet high command being able to adapt and continue pushing even when it seemed like everything was falling apart (case blue the Germans initially had successes, despite being outgunned and outnumbered for example). However piggy boy between his bouts of homosexual drunken retardation will state that muh Soviets are incapable of ANYTHING and lend lease did all the heavy lifting (it didn’t, it helped majorly in 1941-42 before Soviet production got up and running again). Hell the best thing lend lease did was introduce the Soviets to human factors and better consideration for Soviet pilots via the P-63 air cobra.
Call me completely nuts but I honestly think in any “Cold War gone hit scenario”, with the way the T-72’s were deployed, they’d absolutely wipe NATO and be very difficult to deal with. Unless it’s post 1983 roughly.
They definitely did adapt, and they did so quickly.
Lend-Lease didn't even "help" in the way him and other retards like him think. Lend-Lease wasn't just "Here's some Shermans and P-63s!", it was oil and grain, trains and trucks (especially Studebaker trucks), and exotic materials that the USSR simply couldn't produce (either at all or in the necessary quantities to keep production going). Really, specifically, it was the USA sending the Soviets trucks and trains that did the most good, since it meant the USSR could maintain (some of) its logistics in the early days of the war and keep its industry focused on making tanks and fighting vehicles they desperately needed.
I heard an anecdote, I sadly don't have a source, that the Soviets had assigned their Lend-Lease Shermans to Guards tank units (the best units in the Soviet/Russian army), and put them under armed NKVD guard to discourage troops from looting the leather in the seating. Pretty much every tanker, no matter if they were American, British, Canadian, or Soviet, agreed the Shermans had the most crew-friendly layout of any tank of the war.
I'd say they still had the advantage in 1985. Post-86 is when I think the Pact would have actually been in danger of not winning.
Tbh the Object 187 probably should have been the T-72 and T-80 replacement
The one thing about zog lovers like piggy, ani, digi etc fail to realise is that the winners of every war are ones who are able to usually overcome and adapt. They are able to tweak things, ww2 of course being the biggest example. As I’ve said time and time before, they are incapable of recognising doctrine and how it changes. NATO doctrine didn’t become the way it is out of just pure theory, it has to be tested. This all flies in the face of how much piggy despises the Soviet Union, accuses Slavs of more or less being backwards animals etc. The Soviets winning ww2 has piggy’s theory on the Soviets (and ani) completely fall apart.
Didn't lend-lease also allow the soviets access to higher octane fuels for their aircraft? I swear there was something along the lines of soviets usually ran 90 octane until they could get 110/130 stuff, likely accompanied with the P-63's when they were first delivered to the front. Also on top of that the soviets needed that fuel, grain etc to keep going for the period where soviet factories needed to keep production up to demand as factories moved past the Urals to be out of range from German bombing. However people are likely to twist Zhukov's quote to make it seem the Soviets were literally le helpless without the allies or whatever.
Same with the P-63. It was seen as a mediocre aircraft by western standards, but to sovets? The cockpit's were not confusing to scan over and in reality, the aircraft were actually far more survivable than the Yak-1's, LAGG-3's, 5's etc (iirc the yak-3 and later did improve upon this and handling characteristics). There were other aspects of the aircraft but point stands, some things were simply just designed well for the user at hand.
They would be a tough nut to still crack. Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising is still pretty realistic but it gets too Jingoist and really makes it more limited than it should. It also gives NATO a bit too much credit. Either way, yeah, although I would say the last time any possible war could've happened was with Andropov dying and a Stroika taking over rather than Grobachev. Something something hardliners internally revolt and take over. But this is just theory-crafting.
i havea soft spot for it, as its the only swing-wing airplane that wasnt a complete maintenance nightmare
You can’t eat your cake and have it too. It’s just impossible for him to drop the shtick because that’s what he wants to be. Funny but also taken seriously. The “I am an actual historian!” is just a defence he uses to try and excuse his slander.
Ani is going to make sure to somehow shit allll over it. Actually, I can see what he is going to bring up:
WHAT? HOW?
pretty sure its not a myth, but the effects arent as severe, as it doesnt make the plane disintegrate in mid-air, but just means the airframe's life was a lot shorter than planned, and the ground crew suffers every time the gun is fired
its not about monkey models, it's about the planes being operated by 70IQ goatfuckers, whose higher command are 80IQ goatfuckers, even if u gave these guys F-22s they'd have a bad kill ratio
iirc the MiG-27 didnt have a radar, to leave room for the gun, and all floggers had very bad RWR with a very clunky display and very large blind spots
it's a third-gen that had to fight fourth-gens, ofc it got mauled
IIRC this was mainly during testing where the aircraft eventually had a smaller gun mounted to it. Also the larger of any possible gun being mounted on a CAS/SEAD aircraft was then put on the su-24 anyways. Combination K has a video outlining the mig-27's role pretty well.
I think most people realise this was meant to be the case for the aircraft but the GC units in other nations were non-existant or led by retards. Although Iran and Iraq actually sort of rose above this during their war. Of couse Ani will ignore this.
still tho there's no way this gun doesnt excessively stress the airframe
For a long time they were great, a fast and reliable interceptor that was supersonic. The small fuel capacity limits its usage in modern combat buts its still a fighter jet good for blowing up sandniggers.
its really good if ur an african warlord who needs a completley idiot-proof supersonic plane that costs 10x less than any potential alternative
I don't think they are actually friends. I think she just being nice to him because he was one of the "large" creators of the Mil enthusiast community in YouTube that has been interacting, commenting (which I remember due how strange it seemed at the time) and liking her videos when she was barely starting on YouTube.
Soviet aircraft doctrine also favored quantity, specialization for a specific role, and ease of maintenance because they have to face the most dreaded enemy of all equipment, conscript Ivan Petrov. All the MiG bureau really needed it to do was climb to 10 kilometers, hit mach 2, shoot down the interceptee as fast as possible when alerted.
Those guys during the Cold War did also learn the hard way that if they want MiG parts, they have to enter the dreaded MiG Diplomacy aspect of the Soviet Union. They learn very quickly that the engines have a much shorter lifespan than their western counterparts and will inevitably need to either be swapped or completely overhauled. If you're the Soviet Union, you already have a centralized logistics network where they simply take the old engine out, put the new in and send the old back to a depot where it gets a thorough servicing.
Going off of memory as well but lend-lease trucks were more far integral to Soviet operations than that. For example damn near the entirety of the Studebaker US6 production run was exported under lend-lease to the Soviets (~175k out of ~200k), which itself equated to minimum 60% of total wartime Soviet truck production (~200-300k depending on source). The number was low in terms of total truck production for 1941, but was definitely overshadowing whatever the Soviets pumped out for 1942-44.
Don’t forget that the soviets liked the Studebaker so much the copied it after the war and kept it in production for another 25 years.
