What did the Soviets get right with armoured vehicle design?

[TrustMe]

 

Basically, I was reading some of my tank books and they are all, more or less, saying all the faults of Soviet/Russian tanks and how great (and different) Wester tank design is. An example would be the poor reverse speed of the T72/90 series and the small length of APDS  projectables resulting in poor steel penetration. Another example would be how their turret didn't extend backwards for great gun size.

 

But what did the Soviets/Russians get right and was better than Western tanks?

Edited February 12 by TrustMe

[Rick]

Ability to produce large numbers of them.

[R011]

Smaller silhouettes.  Auto loaders. Lighter. A bit cheaper.  A decent HE round.

Otherwise, they seem to have effective armament.  Adequate protection.  Good mobility.  Reasonable reliability.  Electronics, fire control, vision devices on par or close to the West.

[sunday]

Transverse mounted engine, perhaps the bigger innovation.

[Ssnake]

They did not understand the force multiplication effect of thermal imagers until the mid 2000s.

They haven't done much since 1991 to separate crew, ammo, and fuel.

The low reverse speed is maybe the only questionable design choice that was imposed on the designers by military specifications.

 

Other than that, I'm hesitant to judge harshly. Most design decisions were reasonable, or at least not obviously stupid. And yes, they got the production quantity right, or the decision to stockpile old vehicles and ammo rather than sending them right back into the smelter. That's a particular kind of stupid on the Western side.

[Interlinked]

It seems appropriate to promote my book on the T-72 as an answer: T-72: The Definitive Guide to the Soviet Workhorse. To a large extent it depends on whether you are interested in the technology and engineering of making a good tank, or what a "good" tank is in the first place. From the technology side of things, Soviet tanks had many positive points, some bad points, and huge number of "interesting" points. Many of the "interesting" points come from the bad points overlapping with the positive points plus a healthy dose of uncertainty.

One of those is ammunition capacity. For such a small tank the T-72A can hold up to 43 rounds of 125mm ammo, basically the same as a Leopard 2's 42 rounds of 120mm, but this was achieved by putting ammo everywhere it could fit. Ammo capacity was highlighted as a critical factor by the Israelis in the 1973 war and the smaller 40-ish round capacity of T-55s and T-62s was considered deficient compared to Centurions and Pattons. These all had no specially ordered or protected ammo stowage system. Soviet tanks all had ammo capacities hovering around 40 rounds because that's what the army wanted, and the number simply never changed even as guns went from 100mm to 115mm and then to 125mm and fire control systems became more sophisticated. Then in the 1980's you see the Germans and Americans settling on 40-ish rounds for their own 120mm gun tanks. Was 40-ish rounds too little, just right, or should it have been cut to a smaller number for safety's sake for the T-72?

[seahawk]

Apart from missing the importance of electronics in the later 1980ies, there were not many serious mistakes.

Weight was limited by the road and rail network, which then imposes a certain limit on the available volume for a certain level of protection. On the other hand they had designs that were world leading for some time, especially the T-64 deserves to be mentioned. The other mass produced tanks were fine, reliable and worked.

[Interlinked]

The weight of heavy tanks was limited to 50 tons as a semi-arbitrary "line in the sand" to limit technical risk and mitigate the possibility of another monstrosity like IS-7. Medium tanks were limited to 36 tons (so that the's T-54's successor would have to weigh the same) as a semi-arbitrary goalpost to force the designers to reach the performance requirements by improving on a technical level instead of upsizing. Increasing the weight was tolerated if it could be justified - and it was, in the T-64A, T-72, T-80, and their follow-on variants, and their planned replacements. There was never any weight limit imposed by infrastructure. Dimensions were only slightly affected by the rail gauge, and the Soviets had a slight advantage because the Russian gauge was wider than the International gauge that most countries followed.

Edited February 13 by Interlinked

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Interlinked said:

The weight of heavy tanks was limited to 50 tons as a semi-arbitrary "line in the sand" to limit technical risk and mitigate the possibility of another monstrosity like IS-7. Medium tanks were limited to 36 tons (so that the's T-54's successor would have to weigh the same) as a semi-arbitrary goalpost to force the designers to reach the performance requirements by improving on a technical level instead of upsizing. Increasing the weight was tolerated if it could be justified - and it was, in the T-64A, T-72, T-80, and their follow-on variants, and their planned replacements. There was never any weight limit imposed by infrastructure. Dimensions were only slightly affected by the rail gauge, and the Soviets had a slight advantage because the Russian gauge was wider than the International gauge that most countries followed.

But not when it got to Europe. And the Soviets were moving considerable amounts of their equipment around by rail, even inside East Germany when Tank transporters might have been a more logical answer.

[RETAC21]

6 hours ago, Interlinked said:

It seems appropriate to promote my book on the T-72 as an answer: T-72: The Definitive Guide to the Soviet Workhorse. To a large extent it depends on whether you are interested in the technology and engineering of making a good tank, or what a "good" tank is in the first place. From the technology side of things, Soviet tanks had many positive points, some bad points, and huge number of "interesting" points. Many of the "interesting" points come from the bad points overlapping with the positive points plus a healthy dose of uncertainty.

One of those is ammunition capacity. For such a small tank the T-72A can hold up to 43 rounds of 125mm ammo, basically the same as a Leopard 2's 42 rounds of 120mm, but this was achieved by putting ammo everywhere it could fit. Ammo capacity was highlighted as a critical factor by the Israelis in the 1973 war and the smaller 40-ish round capacity of T-55s and T-62s was considered deficient compared to Centurions and Pattons. These all had no specially ordered or protected ammo stowage system. Soviet tanks all had ammo capacities hovering around 40 rounds because that's what the army wanted, and the number simply never changed even as guns went from 100mm to 115mm and then to 125mm and fire control systems became more sophisticated. Then in the 1980's you see the Germans and Americans settling on 40-ish rounds for their own 120mm gun tanks. Was 40-ish rounds too little, just right, or should it have been cut to a smaller number for safety's sake for the T-72?

Smaller ammo loads were compensated by improved fire control. If you cut the number of rounds needed for hit from 3 to 1, going from 60 to 40 rounds makes sense, and eases your logistics in the process.

[RETAC21]

11 hours ago, Rick said:

Ability to produce large numbers of them.

This wasn't something that the Soviets designed for, the West could have scaled production up with investment, but with whole cities dedicated to building tanks, the WP didn't have much of a choice but to build big and sell cheap. This applies to Poland and Czechoslovakia too, most of the T-72 production ended up being for export.

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Ammo capacity was highlighted as a critical factor by the Israelis in the 1973 war and the smaller 40-ish round capacity of T-55s and T-62s was considered deficient compared to Centurions and Pattons. These all had no specially ordered or protected ammo stowage system.

Sure, but they were all tanks designed in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. My main criticism was that in 1991 even the most ardent defender of Soviet tank designs could no longer dispute their vulnerabilities by having ammo everywhere. And yet, the Russian designers failed to change anything in the following three decades. The Black Eagle was proposed but not adopted, the Armata might not get adopted - at least not anytime soon, it simply is as if all these explosions didn't happen.

[seahawk]

3 hours ago, Interlinked said:

The weight of heavy tanks was limited to 50 tons as a semi-arbitrary "line in the sand" to limit technical risk and mitigate the possibility of another monstrosity like IS-7. Medium tanks were limited to 36 tons (so that the's T-54's successor would have to weigh the same) as a semi-arbitrary goalpost to force the designers to reach the performance requirements by improving on a technical level instead of upsizing. Increasing the weight was tolerated if it could be justified - and it was, in the T-64A, T-72, T-80, and their follow-on variants, and their planned replacements. There was never any weight limit imposed by infrastructure. Dimensions were only slightly affected by the rail gauge, and the Soviets had a slight advantage because the Russian gauge was wider than the International gauge that most countries followed.

But the road bridges in Eastern Europe were not an the bridging equipment who also need to be replaced once they go over 50t.

[old_goat]

I'd add one more thing, a myth that needs to be busted: that soviet/russian tanks are ergonomic nightmares. This myth originates from the T-34 (which was indeed an ergonomic nightmare), but lots of historians assume that soviets did not care about ergonomics, and then later post war designs are also just as bad as the T-34. This is very far from the truth. I sat in T-34, T-55 and T-72, and even the T-55 was simply luxurious compared to the T-34. I've never driven a T-34, but rode on it once. Was extremely rough. On the other hand, I've driven T-55 based vehicles many times, (VT-55 ARV, and BLG-60 bridgelayer), and the difference is day and night. So to sum it up, soviets in the post war period definitely cared about ergonomics, their designs werent bad at all in this regard. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

19 hours ago, R011 said:

Smaller silhouettes.  Auto loaders. Lighter. A bit cheaper.  A decent HE round.

I agree on smaller silhouette and weight, but I wouldn't count autoloaders as a plus. Today yes, but back then? A crew of 4 was superior.

[Marsh]

During the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union took a different approach to both the Western allies and their German opponents. For both their allies and enemy, the intention when producing successive batches of a particular model of tank, was to improve the capabilities of the vehicle. For the Soviets that was a lesser factor. The overwhelming drive was simplification of production to allow an increased number of tanks to flow from the factories. As pointed out in Jochen Vollerts wonderful book on the KV-1 and KV-2, simplification efforts over a 7 month period reduced the manpower hours required to manufacture KVs  from 25,000 to 7,000. If improvements to the vehicle were absolutely necessary, then they would be introduced, but not at the cost of simplification of production and resultant extra tanks for the battlefield.

Edited February 13 by Marsh

[bojan]

16 hours ago, Ssnake said:

They did not understand the force multiplication effect of thermal imagers until the mid 2000s...

They did understand it quite well, but in the '80s they were only able to produce them in the miniscule quantities, unfit for tank production (estimated production was less than 100 sets per year even with all effort of electronics factories, and those were already behind on other stuff). PRP-4M was first Soviet vehicle with thermals, since they could scrounge some for artillery observation vehicle while less than 100 sets per year would cover less than 5% of ~2000tanks per year production. By the 1990. some (about 50-60, possible less) T-80BVs were equipped by thermals and they had new model that could be sort of mass produced (estimated production ~200-300 sets per year), but then USSR fell apart. Then came extremely lean years and they were unable to do anything about that problem due the lack of money until 2000s, when they have correctly decided to get license for French thermals since their were now few generations behind.

[Interlinked]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But not when it got to Europe. And the Soviets were moving considerable amounts of their equipment around by rail, even inside East Germany when Tank transporters might have been a more logical answer.

That was not in the design requirements. Railway gauge dimensions were loosely restricted by the domestic gauge, not the International gauge, and even then it was more of a guideline than a hard requirement. It clashes with the general understanding that Soviets were going to invade Europe and planned everything around that idea, and that Soviet tanks were smaller because they were restricted by rail transport requirements, but there you go. Most beliefs about Soviet tank design are false - that is pretty much normal.

This is a table of oversize categories for various tanks on the Russian railway gauge. As you can see, every Soviet tank was oversized! We might even conclude that it was actually the French who were secretly planning to invade the USSR and thus designed the AMX-30 to take advantage of the rail system.

The T-72 skirt had a half-width of 1,795 mm, just barely within the H0200 category. The T-72 suspension half-width reached 1,685 mm, just barely crossing into the H2000 category. The tank was not vertically oversized, so its final oversize category was H2200. So it's marked with this code on the sides for rail transport. 

Edited February 14 by Interlinked

[nitflegal]

10 hours ago, old_goat said:

I'd add one more thing, a myth that needs to be busted: that soviet/russian tanks are ergonomic nightmares. This myth originates from the T-34 (which was indeed an ergonomic nightmare), but lots of historians assume that soviets did not care about ergonomics, and then later post war designs are also just as bad as the T-34. This is very far from the truth. I sat in T-34, T-55 and T-72, and even the T-55 was simply luxurious compared to the T-34. I've never driven a T-34, but rode on it once. Was extremely rough. On the other hand, I've driven T-55 based vehicles many times, (VT-55 ARV, and BLG-60 bridgelayer), and the difference is day and night. So to sum it up, soviets in the post war period definitely cared about ergonomics, their designs werent bad at all in this regard. 

I don't know that it's possible to bust that myth as I'm not convinced that it is one.  The T-34 is ass to drive and unpleasant just to ride in (I'm 6'4" so YMMV) and if you told me it was designed by a sadist to drive metal bits into my head and torso I'd believe it.  IS-3 is wretched and IS-2 is kinda better unless you're slipping into the coffin for the driver.  I would agree with the T-55 being a real step up and would love to get in a T-44 and IS-4 someday.  However, I feel the T-62 and T-72 I've ridden in (too tall and bulky to get in the driver's position, I tried) were a step down from the T-55.  Better laid out than the T-34 but when you compare them to the comfort level of any western counterpart (OK, never played in the Japanese tanks so can't say about those) they are poorly laid out and uncomfortable.

Nightmare is maybe a strong word for them after WW2 but they don't compare well against the Western designs IMO.  

[On the way]

On 2/12/2025 at 12:48 PM, TrustMe said:

 

Basically, I was reading some of my tank books and they are all, more or less, saying all the faults of Soviet/Russian tanks and how great (and different) Wester tank design is. An example would be the poor reverse speed of the T72/90 series and the small length of APDS  projectables resulting in poor steel penetration. Another example would be how their turret didn't extend backwards for great gun size.

 

But what did the Soviets/Russians get right and was better than Western tanks?

The Russians understood the advantages of having a 3 man crew. They can crew more tanks (25% more) with the same number of tank crew. And hence the Autoloader. But I think the Leclerc was a superior example of that. 

[On the way]

On 2/12/2025 at 12:48 PM, TrustMe said:

 

Basically, I was reading some of my tank books and they are all, more or less, saying all the faults of Soviet/Russian tanks and how great (and different) Wester tank design is. An example would be the poor reverse speed of the T72/90 series and the small length of APDS  projectables resulting in poor steel penetration. Another example would be how their turret didn't extend backwards for great gun size.

 

But what did the Soviets/Russians get right and was better than Western tanks?

I think basically, the main knock against recent Russian Tank design, (the T-72 family) is the ammo storage and catastrophic explosion went hit.  That can be mitigated to large degree if they had installed APS on their tanks 

[Tim Sielbeck]

1 hour ago, On the way said:

The Russians understood the advantages of having a 3 man crew. They can crew more tanks (25% more) with the same number of tank crew. And hence the Autoloader. But I think the Leclerc was a superior example of that. 

My understanding was the autoloader was used so that they could make a smaller, more heavily armored turret without a drastic increase in the weight and size of the turret.

[On the way]

1 minute ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

My understanding was the autoloader was used so that they could make a smaller, more heavily armored turret without a drastic increase in the weight and size of the turret.

Could be, but the autoloader was for sure to eliminate the need for a human crew member. There is a lot to be said for reducing a crew by one. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

17 minutes ago, On the way said:

Could be, but the autoloader was for sure to eliminate the need for a human crew member. There is a lot to be said for reducing a crew by one. 

And a lot to be said against it.

[alejandro_]

The problem with these debates is what you thought the Soviets did right or introduced someone else had already done it or thought about it. 

- Use of diesel engines in T-34 and other WW2 tanks (Japanese did it before, but tanks were not as heavy)
- Turret design in T-54/IS-3. Cast steel allowed for advance ballistics and serial production.
- Reduction of crew from 5 to 4 in IS-2 by assigning radio to commander