>>63355563
Wrong
The US were using M113s in the IFV role until about 1985 which is when you see V Corps fully equipped with Bradleys

>>63354937
>Mi24
Always a step behind NATO because Russians didn't have enough ATGMs and the ones they did put on the Hind sucked balls
>ZSU
Not great not terrible; volume of fire was excellent for the 70s but aim not so
Would have taken its toll of A-10s and Jaguars and Harriers eventually but not without catastrophic losses
>BMP
Would have died hilariously to mines and LAWs
>T72
The tens of thousands of them they built would have been formidable, no matter what you say about quality, which of course is crap. Platoon fire would have killed more NATO tanks than we'd be comfortable with
>both self propelled howitzers
The real infantry killers of the USSR since everything else is so bad
>SA-8
Like the ZSU, probably not as good as NATO equivalent but does the job
Being priority targets for SEAD would make them quickly extinct

Back | Go to board

Board:

/k/

Thread:

We now have enough information about this technology in armed conflicts.Which of these models have been successful and which have not?

We now have enough information about this technology in armed conflicts.
Which of these models have been successful and which have not?