T-90 vs Abrams

[Legbreaker]

The T-90 versus the M1 Abrams from the Russian perspective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAofuApy5sc&feature=related)

I think this probably warrants a thread all of it's own - I can see a LOT of discussion coming....

[pmulcahy11b]

The T-90 is NOT a better tank than the Abrams, or the Challenger, or even the Leclerc or M60-120 or possibly the Ariete. But is has one big advantage over those tanks -- it's still a good, modern tank and it's a lot cheaper than almost any of the other tanks in its class (or at least, the Russians will undercut just about anyone's price).

[Matt Wiser]

The T-90 is just an upgraded T-72, nothing more. The Russian claim is nothing but contractor hyperbole, methinks.

[Panther Al]

Its an interesting vid: They made a few valid points: Yes, it didn't throw a track on the same spot that the M1 did during that show, and yes, it does have a passive ATGM defense system that we don't. I'll also grant its rough terrain abilities are better as well. Lighter? Absolutely. But the rest of it?


*hehs*

[dragoon500ly]

Oh Dear! This video just goes to show that the Russians are the master of today's battlefield and all of us poor Abrams crewmen just might as well pull over and surrender to the superior vehicle.

B*****T!!!!!

Kinda reminds me of the "Invincible Heroic People's Red Army Going Up Against the Helpless Workers Oppressed By NATO Scum Sucking Villains" pieces that you would pick up on certain TV stations during the Cold War.

[Legbreaker]

So lets hear some good things about the T-90...

[Panther Al]

Its small, cheap, and doesn't suck gas like there is no tomorrow. Probably has the ruggedness of all soviet designs, as well as the simplicity of maintenance.

Other than that, nothing for ya. :)

Its basically a very well done upgrade of the T72 - which means in the end, all it is is a T72 with a few extra bells and whistles.

[Targan]

So lets hear some good things about the T-90...

There are none anywhere near my house.

[Schone23666]

And hopefully it'll display the same "jack in the box" effect if it takes a shot in the turret ring like the T72? :p:D

[Webstral]

Until there’s a war involving the T-90, it’s going to be hard to say much about the reality of the T-90 versus expectations. The M1 has the advantage of having been put through its paces under certain circumstances. While I’m inclined to think that we Americans need to be very wary of hubris (instead of congratulating ourselves on having such wonderful equipment), the M1 has done pretty well so far. How well the M1 might perform against a numerous foe with up-to-date equipment and under conditions of enemy air superiority (thus exposing the Achilles heel of fuel consumption) is another matter entirely. We may never find out. Similarly, we may never find out what the real capabilities of the T-90 are.

[Schone23666]

Until there’s a war involving the T-90, it’s going to be hard to say much about the reality of the T-90 versus expectations. The M1 has the advantage of having been put through its paces under certain circumstances. While I’m inclined to think that we Americans need to be very wary of hubris (instead of congratulating ourselves on having such wonderful equipment), the M1 has done pretty well so far. How well the M1 might perform against a numerous foe with up-to-date equipment and under conditions of enemy air superiority (thus exposing the Achilles heel of fuel consumption) is another matter entirely. We may never find out. Similarly, we may never find out what the real capabilities of the T-90 are.

I think you summed it up pretty well Webstral.

With that said....I'd prefer to see one of these T-90's in the hand of someone other than the Russians (which I'm sure won't be long) and have some degree of trustworthiness (small detail, lol) who could evaluate it and give a more impartial report on it's pros and cons. Of course, preferably someone who also doesn't hold a grudge against the West...

[pmulcahy11b]

That is one thing -- the last time the US faced any decent air opposition against our ground forces was the Korean War.

[RN7]

Is it better than the Abrams? No, at least not the later model Abrams (M1A1/A2/A2 SEP) which are nearly 20 tons heavier.

The Russians built it as a compromise as they (back in the 1990's) couldn't afford to build two tanks at the same time; the inferior but cheap T-72B and the superior but expensive T-80U.

The T-90 is a modernised T-72 with some features of the T-80 such as its better fire control system. The T-90 used the same gun as the T-72 but has a new engine, much better layered composite and reactive armour and some new gadgets; new thermal sights, a laser warning reciever, an anti-tank missile jamming systems and some other minor features. The latest T-90MS model has the latest type of Russian composite and reactive armour, a redesigned turret and new gun, and improved targeting, navigation and communication gear.

The Russians think its their best protected tank and it performed better in Chechnya than the T-72 and earlier T-80's (without Arena). Some Indian models have been heavily customised. The T-90M Bhishima reportably has an advanced armour composition welded into the turrets of its T-90's which preformed very well in testing against different types of ammunition even without Russian built in reactive armour.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Kinda reminds me of the "Invincible Heroic People's Red Army Going Up Against the Helpless Workers Oppressed By NATO Scum Sucking Villains" pieces that you would pick up on certain TV stations during the Cold War.

You mean CBS?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

So lets hear some good things about the T-90...

I don't have to crew one?

[Webstral]

A well-trained crew is more important than the hardware they use, provided the competing machines are not two or more generations apart. Crew quality is only part of the equation, though. Leadership quality, maintenance support, logistical support, and supporting/combined arms all multiply the effects of crew quality, which again is more important than the machine. The experience of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front is a good example of this phenomenon. The Germans had a better training program for their tankers and leaders, resulting in a superior performance on a crew-for-crew basis. The Soviets had superior production and a philosophy geared towards maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses, once the Germans failed to win the war in 1942. [1] The German troops were superior, but the Soviet senior leadership was able to offset the German troops superiority by capitalizing on Soviet advantages. Comparisons between tanks have to be made within the context of their use.

Provided the tube-launched ATGM works approximately the way it’s supposed to, the T-90 does have a reach advantage on the battlefield vis-à-vis the M1. On the surface, the reactive armor offers an important protective advantage. However, reactive armor is unfriendly to supporting infantry. The Chechens exploited this fact in Grozny to decouple the combined arms. If one is engaged in a long-range gunnery duel, then the negative side effects of reactive armor become less pronounced. Lower fuel consumption means that there are fewer targets of opportunity for enemy aircraft in the form of tanker trucks. The T-90 can go longer without refueling, and this surely translates into an advantage of some sort. I don’t know enough about the passive ATGM countermeasures in use by the T-90 to comment on the efficacy of said countermeasures.

We’d have to imagine a scenario in which M1 and T-90 tanks would be opposing each other on the battlefield and assign some values to the myriad of variables that are factors. In some cases, the weaknesses of the M1 will be concealed. In other cases, the weaknesses will be glaring and costly. Ditto for the T-90.


1 I’m certainly not debating whether Operation Blau could have won the war for the Germans. However, the fact that the Soviets had the chance to use their manpower reserves and their industrial might, as well as receive important quantities of materiel from the West, turned the lightning war back into a war of attrition not so very different from the trenches of the First World War in its macroscale pattern.

[Legbreaker]

I agree that you have to look on the larger scale to see where the advantages and disadvantages of particular models lie. On a one to one, all other factors equal basis the T-90 is almost sure to be the loser, but if you've got 10,000 tonnes of T-90 facing off against 10,000 tonnes of M1, the additional gun barrels, longer potential range, lower fuel consumption and so forth tip the balance in the other direction.

The key to winning the battle is for the commanders to be very well aware of the capabilities of their troops and their equipment and plan, act, and react accordingly.

[Webstral]

The key to winning the battle is for the commanders to be very well aware of the capabilities of their troops and their equipment and plan, act, and react accordingly.

Sun Tzu couldn't have said it better himself, although he would have added that awareness of the enemy's troops and equipment is an important a part of the equation.

[Panther Al]

Provided the tube-launched ATGM works approximately the way it’s supposed to, the T-90 does have a reach advantage on the battlefield vis-à-vis the M1.



Yes.... and no. The Israeli's have developed a tube launched laser guided missile for the 120mm cannon, and the FC system in the A2 is already set up for that sort of thing. Nothing stopping (except money) the US from picking it up.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Yes.... and no. The Israeli's have developed a tube launched laser guided missile for the 120mm cannon, and the FC system in the A2 is already set up for that sort of thing. Nothing stopping (except money) the US from picking it up.

NMH. See Roland and ADATS.

Frankly I'm amazed we ended up using the M256/L44 Rhinemetall.

[Legbreaker]

Now lets hear all the bad things about the M1 (since the T-90 seems to have had it's share of bashing).

[pmulcahy11b]

Now lets hear all the bad things about the M1 (since the T-90 seems to have had it's share of bashing).

They sneak up on us poor infantrymen too easily.:(

And they suck massively...fuel, that is.

[ArmySGT.]

Fuel Consumption- Four Gallons to the mile

Needs an APU to keep everything on and idle without consuming a lot of fuel.

Field phone for Infantry coordination had to be re-invented.

Thermal signature moving and at idle is huge. The heat bloom coming off can't be masked by nets with the turbine running.

67 tons is to much for a lot of bridges, ferries, and pontoons.

Amphibious like a brick.

[pmulcahy11b]

Fuel Consumption- Four Gallons to the mile

Needs an APU to keep everything on and idle without consuming a lot of fuel.

Field phone for Infantry coordination had to be re-invented.

Thermal signature moving and at idle is huge. The heat bloom coming off can't be masked by nets with the turbine running.

67 tons is to much for a lot of bridges, ferries, and pontoons.

Amphibious like a brick.

Ahh, they give out NODs like candy these days. I've only seen an M1 through NODs a few times, and once through a Bradley's night vision gear -- but you're right.

Funny story -- one time in Korea, the tankers in our convoy were stopped (like the rest of us) in traffic when we were headed to a railhead. One little Korean commuter decided to tailgate an M1. when the M1 hit the gas to pull out, the car's windshield got immediately frosted from heat, and the hood was scorched. The driver went running yelling from his car, then started yelling, "Where is the commander!" The M1 crew weren't held responsible, and the driver was given a ticket for tailgating a military vehicle by the KNPs.

[Panther Al]

Fuel Consumption- Four Gallons to the mile

Needs an APU to keep everything on and idle without consuming a lot of fuel.

Field phone for Infantry coordination had to be re-invented.

Thermal signature moving and at idle is huge. The heat bloom coming off can't be masked by nets with the turbine running.

67 tons is to much for a lot of bridges, ferries, and pontoons.

Amphibious like a brick.

Rough Terrain Performance Sucks - A Merkava can outrun an M1 over rough terrain. This is an established fact - its one of the reasons the Israeli's decided *not* to get the M1, with the other being its a firebomb waiting to happen due to the use of Hydraulics in the Turret. True, the fluid is Fire Resistant, but it was the experiences they had with Hydraulic systems in earlier wars that proved using Hydraulics in the Fighting Compartment was a *very* bad idea.

[dragoon500ly]

You mean CBS?

LOL! Not ABC?

Seriously, when I was stationed with 2ACR, we were close enough to the border to pick up East German and Czech TV and radio as well as the Russian TV channel. Got to see lots of bull***t..err...sources of information telling everyone how horrible and evil NATO was.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The M1 has soft spots on it like a newborn's head.

I remember back in 2003 one got schwacked early on in OIF and the press and the military were convinced it'd been taken out by a "Koronet" ATGM and there was this huge concern that the Syrians or Lebanese or Iranians were shipping high-end weapons in during the opening stages of the war.

Nope!

Turns out it was a plain-Jane RPG-7. Probably on the order of 30 years old. Punched through the hull, burned a hole in the main breaker box, mission kill.

WTF, guys?! As cool as I think the Abrams is, I really worry when I hear jazz like that.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

LOL! Not ABC?

Seriously, when I was stationed with 2ACR, we were close enough to the border to pick up East German and Czech TV and radio as well as the Russian TV channel. Got to see lots of bull***t..err...sources of information telling everyone how horrible and evil NATO was.

Did you see that attempted hatchet job back in '81 that Communist Broadcasting Service put out called "The Defense Of The United States of America"? One of Reagan's first steps in office was to rebuild our military, and oh my god CBS went insane. This five day muckraking mini-series "exposed" how awful the hardware Reagan was getting ready to invest in was, how it'd be missiles over the pole anyway and new carriers, fighter aircraft, bombers, tanks, APCs and so on were useless and a waste of taxpayer dollars and the ones that Reagan was purchasing were all bad anyway and they could prove it. I remember one smarmy comment from Morely Safer that "according to one USAF commander, the F15 Eagle is, in fact, a turkey."

BAHAHAHA. Yeah, wipe that turkey egg off your face, Safer, because the Israelis used that "turkey" to win 80-0 over the Bekaa Valley not a year later. A plane so "bad", it'll still be in service for the next fifteen years (that's fifteen plus thirty years after CBS' little hatchet job that nobody but military hardware geeks like me remember anyway).

In fact, most of the wonder weapons that Reagan invested in? Yeah, they were all nearly a decade old in design! F15 was started in 1973, under Ford! Carter is the one who signed off on procurement! Same for the '16, the B1, the F117; the Abrams was the product of 20 years of attempts to replace the M60...

All Reagan did was order more of it and throw out Hollow Farce...erm, Force.

[Panther Al]

The M1 has soft spots on it like a newborn's head.

I remember back in 2003 one got schwacked early on in OIF and the press and the military were convinced it'd been taken out by a "Koronet" ATGM and there was this huge concern that the Syrians or Lebanese or Iranians were shipping high-end weapons in during the opening stages of the war.

Nope!

Turns out it was a plain-Jane RPG-7. Probably on the order of 30 years old. Punched through the hull, burned a hole in the main breaker box, mission kill.

WTF, guys?! As cool as I think the Abrams is, I really worry when I hear jazz like that.

Yes.... and No - much like a lot of things. Been in an M1 that got hit in the side by RPG's, including a money shot on the ring itself. No damage other than cosmetic. Hell, my mac even still worked and the bag it was in was blown off by said RPG.

What was determined in the field that while a few of the penetrating shots by an RPG was done with a tandem charge warhead. But the bulk of the kill shots was actually caused by 122mm rockets fired waist high from about 10 meters, tops. Usually hid behind a car, a dumpster, that sort of thing.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Yes.... and No - much like a lot of things. Been in an M1 that got hit in the side by RPG's, including a money shot on the ring itself. No damage other than cosmetic. Hell, my mac even still worked and the bag it was in was blown off by said RPG.

What was determined in the field that while a few of the penetrating shots by an RPG was done with a tandem charge warhead. But the bulk of the kill shots was actually caused by 122mm rockets fired waist high from about 10 meters, tops. Usually hid behind a car, a dumpster, that sort of thing.

wow

You know what? I'm just gonna STFU on the topic. I mean...I read Janes books, google things, pore over wikipedia pages, etc. etc. but...you have Been There and Done That, so I bow to your really seriously no messing around superior knowledge. Holy crap...been in one when it's been hit with an RPG. You, sir, are a steely-eyed missile-man...erm, tank-man.

I will ask though - were those hits you were discussing side/rear/upper-back deck hits or frontal?

[Panther Al]

The money shot mentioned was right in front of the NBC system, between the turret and the upper hull. Left one hell of a scorch mark - and set the NBC system on fire (Not that it takes much to make that happen, those things are always burning up on the least excuse).


To be fair: We wonder if the warhead actually went off, as a hit from another RPG that nailed the left turret cheek actually did a little more damage than that.

The pics of RPG hits are not too surprising though: The M1 is armored to the front at a higher cost to the side and rear than most tanks out there, running around doing MOUT isn't a good idea. The skirts past the halfway point are really nothing more than a splinter shield, they have no thickness worth mentioning, and the side armor on the lower hull is little better than the belly or rear past the midway point as well. Then again, so is most tanks. All the high tech high test stuff is in the frontal arc anyways, so the rest is just generic steel.

[95th Rifleman]

Until there’s a war involving the T-90, it’s going to be hard to say much about the reality of the T-90 versus expectations. The M1 has the advantage of having been put through its paces under certain circumstances. While I’m inclined to think that we Americans need to be very wary of hubris (instead of congratulating ourselves on having such wonderful equipment), the M1 has done pretty well so far. How well the M1 might perform against a numerous foe with up-to-date equipment and under conditions of enemy air superiority (thus exposing the Achilles heel of fuel consumption) is another matter entirely. We may never find out. Similarly, we may never find out what the real capabilities of the T-90 are.

It's very hard for Americans to admit that they are losing their edge. Every conflict America has fought since WW2 was against an inferior enemy with export-grade technology. Both Iraq wars led American thinkers to hubris and to see Russian gear as obsolete and inferior.

However in today's world the realities are different, the gaps between east and west are not as clear cut as they once where.

Take the SU50, a modernised, stealth capable aircrat that is the equal to the F22 Raptor. For years Russian vehicles have modern, effective anti-missle systems while American desighners have no real progress in this direction. A deadly hubris considering that missles are the best offense against a modern AFV (top-attack systems mean that the front arour of a tank is a meaningles statistic as they blow their way through the top of the turret).

We assume our crews to have more experience, our tanks to be better because we have learned lessons from warzones. Yet we ignore the fact tat Russia has had the same experience in Checnya that our crews have had in iraq and they have learned the same lessons.

[ArmySGT.]

Shenanigans

[Raellus]

As to the T-90 vs. M1 debate...

Obviously, not everything in the Russian infomercial should be taken at face value; I'm sure that they're overstating many of its capabilities. The range advantage of the tank-launched ATGMs, for example- engagement ranges that would give it an edge are few and far between in Central/Western Europe. Maybe on the steppes of the Ukraine, but in the Hochwald gap? Not really.

That said, I've been a big Red Army apologist here on this board and I think that some of the late Cold War Soviet-designed tanks (from the T-64 through the T-90, domestic use versions) are more than a little bit underrated by a lot of Westerners.

Someone once said that "quantity has a quality all of its own" and I think he had a point. The Soviet ability to put 5-10 MBTs on the line for every NATO one can't be sneezed at. To assume that every M1, Leopard, Challenger, etc. is going to take out 5-10 Soviet MBTs before being taken out themselves is pretty hopeful, if not downright naive. I really think that the lessons of GW 1 & 2 are misleading when one attempts to apply them to a WWIII scenario in Europe.

[ShadoWarrior]

Take the SU50, a modernised, stealth capable aircrat that is the equal to the F22 Raptor.That assertion begs for proof.

[Panther Al]

While the bit about the SU50 being the equal of the F22 (Saying F/A is nothing more than Air Farce sandbagging for budgetary reasons) is a little absurd, there is something to be said about a lot of the "Soviet Stuff is Crap" talk is perhaps a bit much. After all, how many of those uber-russian aircraft are there? None of the latest and greatest has been built in anything approaching noticeable quantities.

The last 25 years have been a total game changer for Aircraft. The MiG29/Su27 combo vs. the F16A/F15A match up is a *lot* closer than I think anyone would like to admit, especially with some of the tricks the MiG had in its hat. But with the latest high tech tricks that have come out - tricks that the russians just can not match - the gap between Western and Eastern Aircraft have been bigger than at any point in history. High Tech Pays when it comes to planes.


Now tanks on the other hand, not so much. A huge plus to be sure, but not as major of an issue. The only place it really comes to play is fire control - nothing to be sneezed at granted. But for tanks it always boils down to the triad: Firepower, Protection, and Mobility. The M1 beats the T90 in the first two - the last is more a toss up. The T90 only has 2/3's the HP that the M1 has, but then, its 2/3's the weight. And add in the fact that the suspension on the M1 leaves something to be desired when it comes to rough terrain, I'll give the T90 the edge here. To say that the T90's tungsten long rod AP round is equal to the M1's DU round, fired at a much higher velocity, is something of a laugh. The missile is a valid point, but as mentioned, only good on wide open areas. Not to mention the Autoloader in russian tanks are considered jokes for a reason....

But then again, you can afford a lot more T90's than M1's for the same amount of cash. Depends on if you can afford the bills for the addition training, pay, and so forth that you'll need for all those extra people.

Also recall, M1's are built to be maintained. Russian tank designs are designed to be used and discarded when wore out: so maintenance on russian designs are actually a lot more expensive when parts, and labour, is added up. There is a reason when people upgrade soviet era designs, the first things they do are replace the engine, the electronics, and then the gun.

Russian guns have historically suffered from the fact that the Russian munitions industry have never been able to equal western munitions: it boils down to powder. In WW2, the Russian 76mm was only the equal to the 50mm KwK, and it took the 85mm gun to equal the Germans 75mm KwK L/48. The L70 required the use of the 122mm gun. It improved post war, but even today the 125mm gun isn't *quite* the equal to the German 120 that about everyone else uses. Even the Chinese admit this as they copied the design and are using it instead of the 125 on a number of the newest designs that they are beginning to field.

[Webstral]

Technological advantages matter most in simple environments. Relative to ground environments, the air dimension is simple. One of the reasons the Hail Mary attack by VII US Corps in Operation Desert Storm succeeded so well is that the desert environment is almost theoretical in its simplicity. The ground isn’t perfectly level and featureless, but the terrain of south central Iraq and northwestern Kuwait is far more like a chess board than the AO in which VII US Corps would have fought in southern Germany in the event of a war with the Warsaw Pact. Despite the fact that Coalition EW was wrecking havoc with Iraqi radio communications, the Republican Guard was not taken by surprise (operationally speaking) by the Hail Mary maneuver. By the time VII US Corps reached the Republican Guard, the defending Iraqis had reoriented themselves along a north-south axis facing west. However, while lines of sight were superb, visibility was poor. The Republican Guard did most things correctly, although units that sat in one location for more than 12 hours without taking proper defensive measures deserve what they got. However, all along the line American forces ran into Iraqi units in hasty defensive positions. The Iraqis were ready to fight. They just couldn’t see. The M1 had the technological advantage and the right circumstances under which to exploit that advantage. Without excellent lines of sight, poor visibility, and a main gun capable of reaching out to 4000 meters the M1 wouldn’t have fared so well.

Again, all this goes back to where the fight is taking place and what each side brings to the fight. The long ranges of the T-90’s ATGM aren’t going to be worth much if the M1s have two-tiered fighting positions or a reverse slope defense. On the other hand, if the M1s are advancing across open terrain the ATGM has a much more favorable situation. I don’t know what kind of reactive armor the T-90 sports, but I do know that reactive armor is specialized for defeating solid penetrators or HEAT. Against a mid-level anti-tank weapon, reactive armor specialized for defeating solid penetrators might perform adequately against a HEAT round, and vice versa. Against a top shelf anti-tank weapon, specialized reactive armor might not do the job against the other kind of round.

All the comments about how flanking shots by RPG and other unsophisticated weapons against MBT in urban environments have exposed a dangerous weakness in the Abrams both underscore and miss the point about the hazards of urban operations. Tanks don’t belong in urban combat, except for the fact that it’s difficult to carry offensive operations without them if one doesn’t have very capable light infantry (which the US does not, by and large). For reasons that have already been given, tanks are optimized for certain jobs. The armor can’t be impenetrable everywhere. The US Army insists on using tanks in urban environments partly because our own leadership has drunk the Kool-Aid and partly because an MBT has a powerful psychological effect on enemy and friendly forces. We can’t expect to frighten everybody away with an MBT—just many of the enemy’s people. Some of the enemy will fight, and some MBT will be lost as a result. The urban environment is a horribly complex environment in which the advantages of technology are very badly circumscribed. An enemy who understands that the armor of an MBT can’t be as strong as the frontal armor on every facing of the tank is going to exploit that knowledge.

[ShadoWarrior]

Again, all this goes back to where the fight is taking place and what each side brings to the fight. The long ranges of the T-90’s ATGM aren’t going to be worth much if the M1s have two-tiered fighting positions or a reverse slope defense. On the other hand, if the M1s are advancing across open terrain the ATGM has a much more favorable situation.
"What each side brings to the fight" also applies to the offense. The ATGM won't be much of an issue, even in open terrain, because US doctrine calls for Apaches to lead the tanks. Those T-90s would be Hellfire'd long before the M1s would be in danger. The modern battlefield is three-dimensional, and includes close air support.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Apropos of nothing, let me say this:

There is a saying amongst car enthusiasts that goes: Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

Basically, the company who wins at the Daytona 500 is going to see a jump in sales over the course of the next week.

The same thing holds true for Military hardware. After Vietnam, nations lined up to buy Soviet stuff. SA2s, T55s, T62s, etc. Now, granted, the Soviet model was a lot different from the western: their "client" states were just that, and got single-sourced from Mother Russia whether they liked it or not (shut up, Romania). But it held that they bought from the big winners.

Fast forward to ODS, and now suddenly you have a _lot_ of M1 buyers, and a lot more Apache and F16 customers. Even after OIF, orders for western equipment are still pretty high. "Quantity has a quality all its own" and "Perfect is the enemy of good enough" don't matter that much any more. It's not going to be 50000 AFVs pouring through the Fulda (it never was; if we'd held on all fronts, the Soviets would have nuked us, and if they'd started to win big, we'd have nuked them, period), it's going to be armored brigades breaking up hard concentrations but long before then it's going to be JDAMs from 32000 feet - most likely dropped by 60 year old B52s.

Who wants to buy 10000 tanks - even shitty, $650,000 "upgraded" T62s and T72s - when the large majority of them are going to be smashed into scrap-metal from the air? Recent Libyan events prove this out.

But the point of my original thesis stands: we won on Sunday, we're selling on Monday. If we did (god forbid) wind up in another protracted war where lots of armor was involved, whomever won would see the bigger sales of equipment.

[copeab]

Who wants to buy 10000 tanks - even shitty, $650,000 "upgraded" T62s and T72s - when the large majority of them are going to be smashed into scrap-metal from the air?


Someone whose enemy doesn't have much of an air force?

[Raellus]

It's not going to be 50000 AFVs pouring through the Fulda (it never was; if we'd held on all fronts, the Soviets would have nuked us, and if they'd started to win big, we'd have nuked them, period), it's going to be armored brigades breaking up hard concentrations but long before then it's going to be JDAMs from 32000 feet - most likely dropped by 60 year old B52s.

Who wants to buy 10000 tanks - even shitty, $650,000 "upgraded" T62s and T72s - when the large majority of them are going to be smashed into scrap-metal from the air? Recent Libyan events prove this out.


If you are referring to current/recent conflicts, both actual and/or potential, then I agree almost entirely. If you are referring to what could have been (i.e. a conventional WWIII scenario in central Europe), then I could not disagree more. The above assertion assumes air superiority. I think this is overly optimistic, to say the least. The aerial battle space would be incredibly deadly for everyone involved. NATO air forces have indeed dismantled third-world powers, even relatively potent ones, but, once again, this is drawing the wrong lessons from very flawed comparisons. Defeating the combined air defenses of the U.S.S.R. and WTO would have been a much different proposition than destroying the Iraqi, Serbian, and/or Libyan air defense networks.

I guess the point is moot. It's difficult, if not impossible, to debate the possible/probable results of an event that never happened. There are some that believe NATO would have treated the USSR and WTO like they did the Iraqis, and there are those who think it would have been a much, much tougher, possibly unwinnable, fight.

[Webstral]

"What each side brings to the fight" also applies to the offense. The ATGM won't be much of an issue, even in open terrain, because US doctrine calls for Apaches to lead the tanks.

We can't assume a priori that the Apaches will be free to operate the way we'd like them to. Nor can we assume that fixed-wing CAS will be available when and where we'd like it.

[Grimace]

I fall into the camp of the people who think a war against the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact would have been completely different than it was against the Iraqis.

I think we got a glimpse of some things that could be expected when NATO was supposedly bombing the Serbian army in Kosovo. There were an awful lot of Serbian tanks and military vehicles rolling out of Kosovo when the Serbs gave up (because NATO was bombing Serb civilian infrastructure and power rather than military infrastructure).

Blasting something in relatively flat, open ground in the desert (even with waddis and draws to "hide" in) is completey different than taking out tanks and equipment in mountains passes and in the forests of Europe. Add in that everything I've ever heard/read indicated that the Soviets were superior in number and arguably mildly superior in aircraft technology, the only thing on NATO's side is training. I'm not sure if training is going to work against a foe the size of the Soviet armed forces.

Likewise, in tank to tank combat, I'd give the edge to the M1 Abrams, but that doesn't mean I think it's a guaranteed win in every battle for the U.S. Sure an M1 might be able to take out 8 T-72s in 2 minutes or some ridiculous number, but when you're working against 15 to 1 odds, you're going to NEED to take out that many otherwise you're toast and the enemy rolls on through.

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory. The American tanks of the Sherman was laughable compared to German high-end tanks, but we still took them out because we had more of them. That situation would be reversed with Soviet tanks against American/NATO tanks...even though the M1 is better than the T-72 would ever dream to be. The T-90 might be an upgrade, and might allow a bit more survivability, or it might be able to kill at farther range, but it's likely still an inferior tank to the M1. The M1 crews might be miles more well trained than the T-90 crews. The problem is, there's going to be a LOT more T-90s than there are M1s, so it'll be a toss up on who gets the edge.

It is, by no means, a foregone conclusion.

[Legbreaker]

Or to put it another way, give me a litre of water and I drink. Give me a hundred litres and I drown.

The Soviets had a massive advantage in manpower AND they didn't need to haul it all across the Atlantic to get it into battle. Take out a few transport and you've got a radically different battlefield which a few M1s and M2s aren't going to be a huge amount of help on.

The British have a similar problem but shorter distance. A handful of diesel subs can wreak havoc on reinforcements.

[Webstral]

In fairness, the difficulties of trans-Atlantic or cross-Channel movement were not new to NATO. The Soviets would have needed massive advantages in numbers because in an invasion of the FRG they would have been attacking a force using tanks with superior gunnery ranges and a superior ability to depress the guns. Keeping massive numbers of AFV moving forward requires massive amounts of fuel. Interdiction be damned--the roads can only take so much traffic before breaking up. Mines (including FASCAM), EW, and chemicals all conspire to slow the tempo on the battlefield and generally work against the attacker more than they work against the defender. While I may have chastened ShadoWarrior about assuming anything about the Apache on every battlefield, in the FRG the Apache would have had happy hunting. Tanks can't stay hidden in the trees forever.

I agree that the beating Iraq took does not mean we'd have handled the Pact the same way. However, given that the Pact would have been on the offensive, the burden of coming out into the open would have been on them. The Soviets might have been able to develop local superiorities of 15-to-1 here and there, but there are drawbacks to this. I'll go back to FASCAM and the nature of the terrain in southern Germany as an indicator. Large numbers of AFV bunched up behind engineers trying to clear lanes through fields of FASCAM would have been superb targets for ICM and attack aircraft.

Anyway, I think the efficacy of Western systems rather took us by surprise. Granted, the mass of Iraqi units suffered from low morale. However, I wonder if the average Soviet, Polish, and Czech draftees would have any particular enthusiasm for an offensive war in the FRG.

[ShadoWarrior]

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory. The American tanks of the Sherman was laughable compared to German high-end tanks, but we still took them out because we had more of them.
This argument is deeply flawed. Most German tanks killed on the Western Front were destroyed by air attack, not by overwhelming numbers of Ronsons. And there's the factor of the Germans lacking fuel to move their armor. If the Germans had been free to move things would have been far different. Without Allied airpower the Normandy invasion and breakout would have failed.

[95th Rifleman]

"What each side brings to the fight" also applies to the offense. The ATGM won't be much of an issue, even in open terrain, because US doctrine calls for Apaches to lead the tanks. Those T-90s would be Hellfire'd long before the M1s would be in danger. The modern battlefield is three-dimensional, and includes close air support.

That worked fine in Iraq where they had 3rd rate AAA and most of their air defence had been destroyed prior to the invasion. iraq relied far too much on fixed air defence anyway.

In a theoretical scrap against Russia you are dealing the with the best air defence assets in the world at the moment. Also your shiny M1's will be facing Russian MIL-28's and KA-50's with the added problem that American air defence assets are very much behind the curve.

modern, Russian mobile air defence will murder western aviation.

[dragoon500ly]

This argument is deeply flawed. Most German tanks killed on the Western Front were destroyed by air attack, not by overwhelming numbers of Ronsons. And there's the factor of the Germans lacking fuel to move their armor. If the Germans had been free to move things would have been far different. Without Allied airpower the Normandy invasion and breakout would have failed.

The Strategic Bombing Survey conducted after the war mentioned that the Air Force had some success killing tanks with bombs (but required a direct hit to kill a tank), strafing with .50 caliber, while murder for trucks, simply scratched paint on a tank and the use of aerial rockets was more anti-personnel/anti-vehicle than it was anti-tank. It was generally agreed that the Air Force's greatest impact was in knocking out the logistical tail of the panzers.

[Panther Al]

That worked fine in Iraq where they had 3rd rate AAA and most of their air defence had been destroyed prior to the invasion. iraq relied far too much on fixed air defence anyway.

In a theoretical scrap against Russia you are dealing the with the best air defence assets in the world at the moment. Also your shiny M1's will be facing Russian MIL-28's and KA-50's with the added problem that American air defence assets are very much behind the curve.

modern, Russian mobile air defence will murder western aviation.

While I agree that russian mobile battlefield air defense is much better than US Air Defense, the idea that Mil's and Ka's will eat M1's is equally as flawed.

I know you feel that Russian equipment is UberFantasticShineySparklyCool, but, there is a reason why a lot of countries when given the option choose by and large Western Equipment over Russian Equipment save on issues of Cost.

The KA50 is a piss poor ground attack helo: But I will give it this, Ground Attack is *not* its mission. Where the KA50 would (Again, is a prototype ubermachine not in service in any reasonable numbers) give NATO fits is in its defined role: the Anti-Helo mission. In this, the russians was a step in front of the west, as its a mission that we haven't given any serious thought to. The 30mm cannon on the Apache is little more than a glorified 30mm High Velocity Grenade Launcher, and mounting Sidewinders on it, while possible, or Stingers for that matter, is a ad-hoc solution that may or may not work out.

The MiL28 is decent: It's actually better than the AH1G/S series, and probably the equal to early AH1W's of the Marines - and maybe, maybe, early first flight Apache's in the mechanical sense. Where it falls apart is in regards to fighting in anything other than daylight: While it has some night vision capability, better than the hinds, it is nowhere near as good as western night-vision. Getting closer, I'll agree, but if I can see you well before you can see me, guess who is going to win?


One thing I will give the Russians is that the BMP3 is actually pretty darn interesting. While I think the IFV is, on the whole, a poor design path to follow, give the thing modern optics and firecontrol systems, which those that have purchased it have, and you got a pretty scary - if easily killed - IFV.

[95th Rifleman]

While I agree that russian mobile battlefield air defense is much better than US Air Defense, the idea that Mil's and Ka's will eat M1's is equally as flawed.

I know you feel that Russian equipment is UberFantasticShineySparklyCool, but, there is a reason why a lot of countries when given the option choose by and large Western Equipment over Russian Equipment save on issues of Cost.

The KA50 is a piss poor ground attack helo: But I will give it this, Ground Attack is *not* its mission. Where the KA50 would (Again, is a prototype ubermachine not in service in any reasonable numbers) give NATO fits is in its defined role: the Anti-Helo mission. In this, the russians was a step in front of the west, as its a mission that we haven't given any serious thought to. The 30mm cannon on the Apache is little more than a glorified 30mm High Velocity Grenade Launcher, and mounting Sidewinders on it, while possible, or Stingers for that matter, is a ad-hoc solution that may or may not work out.

The MiL28 is decent: It's actually better than the AH1G/S series, and probably the equal to early AH1W's of the Marines - and maybe, maybe, early first flight Apache's in the mechanical sense. Where it falls apart is in regards to fighting in anything other than daylight: While it has some night vision capability, better than the hinds, it is nowhere near as good as western night-vision. Getting closer, I'll agree, but if I can see you well before you can see me, guess who is going to win?


One thing I will give the Russians is that the BMP3 is actually pretty darn interesting. While I think the IFV is, on the whole, a poor design path to follow, give the thing modern optics and firecontrol systems, which those that have purchased it have, and you got a pretty scary - if easily killed - IFV.

Actualy the Americans are considering the British Starstreak system on their Apaches as we have had some success with early conversion work on our own.

I don't actualy think the Russian kit is, how did you put it? "UberFantasticShineySparklyCool". However the gap between Russian and American kit is nowhere near as big as Americans like to think and it's getting narrower every year.

[ShadoWarrior]

The Strategic Bombing Survey conducted after the war mentioned that the Air Force had some success killing tanks with bombs (but required a direct hit to kill a tank), strafing with .50 caliber, while murder for trucks, simply scratched paint on a tank and the use of aerial rockets was more anti-personnel/anti-vehicle than it was anti-tank. It was generally agreed that the Air Force's greatest impact was in knocking out the logistical tail of the panzers.
While I agree concerning the infrastructure destruction having the most impact on the front, it's not bombs vs. tanks I was alluding to. Tactical air (P-47s and Typhoons) using rockets were devastating to German tanks caught in the open.

I'll grant that using rockets against soft vehicles was much easier, as a near miss was still a kill due to blast and shrapnel. But if pilots could score a direct hit on turret top armor, or especially against the armor over the engine compartment, the tank was effectively out for the rest of the war.

[Adm.Lee]

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory. The American tanks of the Sherman was laughable compared to German high-end tanks, but we still took them out because we had more of them.

Interestingly, the Sherman-to-panzer kill ratios changed dramatically whenever the Americans were on defense (Battle of the Bulge, and the September German counterattacks).

Artillery and airpower contributed a lot, but one can read of lots of Shermans getting kills and living to tell the tale. I submit that any defender has an advantage in tank combat.

[Panther Al]

Actualy the Americans are considering the British Starstreak system on their Apaches as we have had some success with early conversion work on our own.

I don't actualy think the Russian kit is, how did you put it? "UberFantasticShineySparklyCool". However the gap between Russian and American kit is nowhere near as big as Americans like to think and it's getting narrower every year.

I'll give it that to be sure: It is getting closer, but by no means is it as close as the Russians would have people think. Until a month ago, they relied on US GPS since GLONASS wasn't up and running, something that they just barely got going back in the bad old good days of the Cold War, we shut that down to other people, and there is some serious issues they have to deal with. Generally speaking, while they can get one off items that are only a few years behind ours, getting them into serial production is nearly impossible. After all, anyone can buy topnotch core hardware in Asia. Its getting them all to work together and the fiddly bits thats the problem. Systemology is the killer. How to get everything up and running, from top to bottom, all in order, all in line, and all working in a nice tight mesh with each other. 20 years from now, if they don't take a serious step back to the old soviet style industrial complex - something I won't bet against with Putin taking back over - that gap could be a lot closer than it is now, perhaps even effectively erased. But, right now, its still too far to make russian equipment viable against top flight western stuff under anything but the most perfect of conditions.

When it comes to high tech items, fighters, helo's, and even tanks due to design features they feel are needed for the needs they have, I won't bother.

Air Defense, on the other hand, is quite another thing. If I was looking for a great battlefield ADA system, I would't hesitate to ask them to come up with a gun/missile system (Though I would use stingers or star-streak (A great system by the way) instead of what they would use.) to be mounted on a chassis of my choice. The Soviets back in the day took a backseat to nobody when it came to layered Air Defense Systems - less because of hardware, though it was decent enough, but from tactics and doctrine.

Also, small arms. They have always designed these from the perspective of giving them to people who are barely educated, have no mechanical bent, and yet, still be up and running regardless. The AK and PK are a legend for a reason. :)

[dragoon500ly]

While I agree concerning the infrastructure destruction having the most impact on the front, it's not bombs vs. tanks I was alluding to. Tactical air (P-47s and Typhoons) using rockets were devastating to German tanks caught in the open.

I'll grant that using rockets against soft vehicles was much easier, as a near miss was still a kill due to blast and shrapnel. But if pilots could score a direct hit on turret top armor, or especially against the armor over the engine compartment, the tank was effectively out for the rest of the war.

The problem with WWII aerial rockets was with their warheads. None of them used hollow-charge it was all HE/Frag. It wasn't until the Allies developed the 4.5-inch/5-inch rockets in 1944/45 that they had an effective weapon, provided it hit. And they had to hit the top armor or the engine deck to score any kill.

One of the problems that the SBS referred to was the 9th Air Force's practice of attacking tanks at tree top level, and from the front, which was generally a waste of ammo. It wasn't until after the Normandy breakout (Cobra) that they started attacking from the rear and from 2,000/3,000 feet.

Strafing of panzers was generally considered to be a waste of time with .50-calibers (even with API, scoring penetrating hits on top/engine armor was slim), unless the pilot could get a burst into the tank while it had its hatches open. Typhoon/Tempest pilots had a better chance with their four 20mm cannon.

And to add insult to injury, the airdales abandoned the hard won lessons of CAS learned in North Africa for the free roaming, pilot engaging anything he sees. Again, it took a lot of painful lessons in Normandy before the air forces realized that effective CAS required a controller on the ground with the troops.

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

Anyone remember Desert Storm and the half-baked CAS version of the F-16 fitted with a 30mm gun pod...that didn't work due to a software screwup?

[Panther Al]

The problem with WWII aerial rockets was with their warheads. None of them used hollow-charge it was all HE/Frag. It wasn't until the Allies developed the 4.5-inch/5-inch rockets in 1944/45 that they had an effective weapon, provided it hit. And they had to hit the top armor or the engine deck to score any kill.

One of the problems that the SBS referred to was the 9th Air Force's practice of attacking tanks at tree top level, and from the front, which was generally a waste of ammo. It wasn't until after the Normandy breakout (Cobra) that they started attacking from the rear and from 2,000/3,000 feet.

Strafing of panzers was generally considered to be a waste of time with .50-calibers (even with API, scoring penetrating hits on top/engine armor was slim), unless the pilot could get a burst into the tank while it had its hatches open. Typhoon/Tempest pilots had a better chance with their four 20mm cannon.

And to add insult to injury, the airdales abandoned the hard won lessons of CAS learned in North Africa for the free roaming, pilot engaging anything he sees. Again, it took a lot of painful lessons in Normandy before the air forces realized that effective CAS required a controller on the ground with the troops.

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

Anyone remember Desert Storm and the half-baked CAS version of the F-16 fitted with a 30mm gun pod...that didn't work due to a software screwup?

And for even better laughs, remember, the Raptor is now known as the F/A-22. Yes, its what the Chair Farce has figured would make for a great attack plane to support the troops, allowing them once more to see if they can get rid of the A10.


What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, under House Resolution 4739 the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 that the Army retired.

[dragoon500ly]

And for even better laughs, remember, the Raptor is now known as the F/A-22. Yes, its what the Chair Farce has figured would make for a great attack plane to support the troops, allowing them once more to see if they can get rid of the A10.


What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 and OV10 that the Army retired.

LOL, never happen.

Prior to the Vietnam War, the Air Farce stated that it had no need of light tactical transports, the C-130 was the bird of choice. The Army disputed this, due to a lack of airstrips large enough to take a C-130. So the Army started purchasing Canadian Buffalo and Caribou STOL transports to meet its needs (I believe the final totals were some 350 aircraft).

As the war heated up, the Air Farce realized that the Army was, once again, pushing for control of tactical airlift and close air support (in the form of Skyraiders and Tweety-birds)....realizing the danger in having the Army once again take to the skies in fixed wing aircraft, the Air Farce and its Congressional idiots transferred most of the fixed wing Army assets to safety under Air Farce control. The Army was left with its Mohawks (all to be dearmed) and a selection of utility aircraft.

The Air Farce stand by and see the Army pilot A-10s............they are liable to stage a JDAM strike on the Army portion of the Pentagon!

[Webstral]

However the gap between Russian and American kit is nowhere near as big as Americans like to think and it's getting narrower every year.

I’m less worried about the gap in hardware than I’m worried about the gap in thinking. The Brits and French disposed more tanks with better protection and firepower compared to the Germans on the eve of the Battle of France. We all know what happened. We could go on and on about the whys, but the fact remains that the Germans out-thought the Franco-British forces. The Japanese out-thought the Brits in Malaya. There were no miracle technologies applied—just clear-headed thinking about what to do with the tools available. The Vietnamese Communists beat us with a combination of clear-headed thinking and commitment. One of the main reasons we disemboweled the Iraqis in Operation Desert Storm is the bankruptcy of Iraqi thinking at the very highest level. The unnecessarily extended series of OIFs is a direct result of a thinking gap that started at the top and went all the way down. We’re unable to win in Afghanistan partly because our leadership is as focused on managing the news cycle as it is on winning the war and partly because we’re too proud to learn from anyone else’s experience and terrified that the slender support of the American public will evaporate in the wake of a single incident a la Mogadishu. Forget the hardware—it’s the thinking that’s the problem.

The Russian development of a helicopter fighter is a perfect example of the problem. We develop an attack helicopter so capable that the enemy has to do something about it that departs from the solutions in place. He does. All our confident plans for use of rotary wing CAS might have been undone by the fear of the helicopter fighter once a few successful missions were executed by the enemy.

Asymetric warfare isn’t just for al-Qaeda. It’s for anyone who is interested in finding a solution that doesn’t involve the development of a rival weapon system. More than ever, a single hard setback is likely to drive the US out of the war. We can’t finance an eventual turnaround the way we did in WW2 and Korea. Cyberspace warfare, for instance, may prove a great equalizer. Cash flow is less important here than in mechanized warfare. The US takes cyber operations seriously, but they may prove to be another Battle of France in which clear-headed thinking carries the day for an enemy. [By the way, I’m glad the leader of cyber operations is the USAF. Of the services, they are the least hide bound.] Any number of other options exist for the cash-poor but highly motivated.

The thinking gap is where we’re falling short. We did just fine taking over Iraq and Afghanistan, but we completely failed to capitalize on our success. Iraq appears to have acquired sufficient inertia to creak forward on its own. Afghanistan will revert to Taliban control within months of our departure. Had we committed enough troops to create the space in which police could perform effectively, and had we invested properly in training proper police forces for both countries, things might look differently now. The same thinking gap is likely to appear during our next conflict.

[Panther Al]

LOL, never happen.

Prior to the Vietnam War, the Air Farce stated that it had no need of light tactical transports, the C-130 was the bird of choice. The Army disputed this, due to a lack of airstrips large enough to take a C-130. So the Army started purchasing Canadian Buffalo and Caribou STOL transports to meet its needs (I believe the final totals were some 350 aircraft).

As the war heated up, the Air Farce realized that the Army was, once again, pushing for control of tactical airlift and close air support (in the form of Skyraiders and Tweety-birds)....realizing the danger in having the Army once again take to the skies in fixed wing aircraft, the Air Farce and its Congressional idiots transferred most of the fixed wing Army assets to safety under Air Farce control. The Army was left with its Mohawks (all to be dearmed) and a selection of utility aircraft.

The Air Farce stand by and see the Army pilot A-10s............they are liable to stage a JDAM strike on the Army portion of the Pentagon!


Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason. There was a pretty good study done on incorporating A-10's into Army Aviation - including Warrant Officer Pilots, something that was felt would have been very popular.

[Tegyrius]

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason.

Not wanting to front the money and other resources required to maintain fixed-wing combat aviation assets and related skill base?

- C.

[bobcat]

honestly T-90 vs Abrams my answer is...

their about equal one on one it would come down to the who's crew is better.

but since your all bringing other variables into this:
a good FO could turn either into slag in 125 seconds counting for TOF and an adjustment. :D

[James1978]

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.
You do realize that was at a time when there was a general push to have the active duty component and reserve component using the same equipment. Guard/Reserve units got F-16s pretty quickly too.

[James1978]

What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, under House Resolution 4739 the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 that the Army retired.

.....................................

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason. There was a pretty good study done on incorporating A-10's into Army Aviation - including Warrant Officer Pilots, something that was felt would have been very popular.
But are they breaking the law? H.R. 4739 was passed during the 101st Congress (1989-1990). That was twenty years ago and before Desert Storm. What one Congress decrees, the next one can repeal. My guess is that a subsequent Congress repealed that particular provision, probably not long after Desert Storm

[dragoon500ly]

You do realize that was at a time when there was a general push to have the active duty component and reserve component using the same equipment. Guard/Reserve units got F-16s pretty quickly too.

And the ANG/AR continued to fly F-4/A-7s until when? The F-16s went to the ANG units with the NORAD mission first and then started to replace F-4s....but some ANG units deployed to PG with F-4s at least in the Wild Weasel and recon roles.

[Panther Al]

Not wanting to front the money and other resources required to maintain fixed-wing combat aviation assets and related skill base?

- C.

Wouldn't be fronting that as they get it all from the Air Force, but yes, finding the money to continue funding might be where the issue is.

Besides, it makes for a handy stick to use on the Chair Farce. "Keep the A10's flying, else we take them from you and we start having armed fixed wing airplanes again." Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

[Panther Al]

honestly T-90 vs Abrams my answer is...

their about equal one on one it would come down to the who's crew is better.

but since your all bringing other variables into this:
a good FO could turn either into slag in 125 seconds counting for TOF and an adjustment. :D

And then another 10 minutes to figure out which side they are supposed to be shooting at... after the fact. ;)

After all, Short is the only way Arty knows how to shoot.

[Legbreaker]

Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

Why exactly is that?

[ArmySGT.]

Why exactly is that?

They lose a portion of their budget to the Army. This would relegate them to
Air Superiority (Fighters ! Their favorite!)
Strategic Bombing
Air Interdiction
Global Air cargo movement.
Strategic Missile Wings.

Once the Army got the A-10s, then the Army would take the AC-130s and Combat Talons, most probably a larger slice of Theater air cargo movement.

This would shove the Air Force almost completely out of the Special Operations Role (BIG budget money) and the Air Force would take a back seat in every operation supporting either the Army or the Navy.

They would see their role in anything but a full blown war with an adversary of like technical capability as just truck drivers.

[Legbreaker]

In other words, it makes a lot of sense for the A-10's etc to be transfered.
Also, having the ground support aircraft actually controlled by the ground forces is likely to save a lot of time, money and ultimately probably lives too.

Goes to show just how messy things can get in a massive organisation like the US government, or even just the military arms of it. There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

[ArmySGT.]

In other words, it makes a lot of sense for the A-10's etc to be transfered.
Also, having the ground support aircraft actually controlled by the ground forces is likely to save a lot of time, money and ultimately probably lives too.

Goes to show just how messy things can get in a massive organisation like the US government, or even just the military arms of it. There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

Absolutely makes sense. That the Army should own all CAS and Theater Transport. Will they change doctrine? Doubtful. Then again the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should always be Army too in my opinion. We had an Admiral overseeing two ground wars.

I don't call a plumber for tax advice and I think an Admiral has no business running a war in a land locked country.

I have been wrong before, though.

[Legbreaker]

I believe I owe everybody a sincere appology.
I indicated that the US government should be run using common sense and logic. What the HELL was I thinking!!! :O

[ArmySGT.]

That's why they call it a Republic, run on democratic principles. :o

[Legbreaker]

That's why they call it a Republic, run on democratic principles. :o

Principles perhaps. Practise, not so much.

[ArmySGT.]

Principles perhaps. Practise, not so much.

However, there you are with Us; everywhere we go.

How about those Principles again?

[Webstral]

There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

Like fascism or communism. Is that the way you see Australia going? Certainly I'm not interested in having a power with no accountability to voters deciding anything. We have enough problems with government agencies running amok without eliminating any and every form accountability. We fought a war specifically to free ourselves from a government in which the citizenry had no voice. Still, our Australian cousins have to form the government that best serves your interests.

[schnickelfritz]

On the subject of the T-90 and related high performance Russian armor, my concern would be whether they could field anywhere near enough of them to make a difference versus the current Western tanks in a real shooting war.

And are the T-80 and T-90 as dangerous to the crews as the T-72 is?

The Mi-28 and Ka-50 are fearsome machines, as are the latest Russki jets, but their problem is one of resources. They've come up with some veicles and systems that may work well enough when it starts, but will there again, be enough to make a difference? Will there be enough of the Mil-28 and Ka-50 to survive all of the Stingers and such? My guess is no.

I seem to remember an issue of the old International Combat Arms magazine in the 80's that was showing a variety of anti-helo aircraft the US was looking at...the Piper Enforcer and Cavalier Mustang 2 included. I believe that the thought that these would be used sort of as the Skyraider was in 'Nam, and sort of to hunt and shoot down Pact helicopters.

I'll tell you this...I think Western gear is generally good enough to fight the Pact to a stalemate in Europe, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to see the Tanguska SPAA at anytime from inside anything airborne. Ever.

-Dave

[Legbreaker]

Our current government will be lucky to last their current term. They are polling around 30% support which is absolutely ABYSMAL!
They lied through their teeth about a number of key issues during the last election campaign and have back flipped on some very serious issues. Some people (30%) do still support them for various reasons, however...

Globally almost all economies are struggling, or in few cases (not pointing the finger at anyone here Greece) are near as dammit bankrupt. What I'd like to see, but sure as hell will never happen, is some competent financial administrators brought in to sort out the mess, pay off debts and generally streamline governmental processes, without being subject to removal by politically driven mechanisms. A period of 12-36 months should be enough to get most countries back on track before handing back to the politicians (to screw up again).

But, none of that is EVER going to happen while humans remain, well, human.

[Targan]

Like fascism or communism. Is that the way you see Australia going? Certainly I'm not interested in having a power with no accountability to voters deciding anything. We have enough problems with government agencies running amok without eliminating any and every form accountability. We fought a war specifically to free ourselves from a government in which the citizenry had no voice. Still, our Australian cousins have to form the government that best serves your interests.

No modern democracy is perfect. I see major issues with both the US and Australian democratic systems. We here in the Antipodes do have a couple of significant advantages, though, in terms of democratic principals. All citizens of voting age in Australia are required to vote, so (theoretically at least) a greater proportion of citizens in Australia actually have a say in who governs them than citizens in the US do. Of course, I'm sure Americans would fiercely guard their right to disenfranchise themselves from the democratic process, if that is their individual wish.

Secondly, it seems (from waaaay down here anyway) that the US has a firmly entrenched 2 party state. Any political groups other than the Republicans and the Democrats are so tiny as to have virtually no relevance. We have 2 main parties here, too, but a number of minor parties regularly get enough seats, particularly in the Senate, to have some say in the political process. I know many people (including myself) who regard a 2 party state as not being a whole lot more democratic than a 1 party state.

[Targan]

Our current government will be lucky to last their current term. They are polling around 30% support which is absolutely ABYSMAL!
They lied through their teeth about a number of key issues during the last election campaign and have back flipped on some very serious issues. Some people (30%) do still support them for various reasons, however...

Yes they lied about some issues. One of the key issues to which you refer, I suspect, is the carbon tax. You know as well as I do that the current Prime Minister meant what she said when she vowed not to introduce carbon pricing but she wouldn't be the PM if she hadn't struck a deal with the Greens to form a minority government, and the cornerstone of that deal was a carbon tax. Call it lying if you want but in reality that's just political expediency. Hmm, a choice of not holding government or doing an unpopular deal and holding government. Be honest, what would you have done?

Globally almost all economies are struggling, or in few cases (not pointing the finger at anyone here Greece) are near as dammit bankrupt. What I'd like to see, but sure as hell will never happen, is some competent financial administrators brought in to sort out the mess, pay off debts and generally streamline governmental processes, without being subject to removal by politically driven mechanisms. A period of 12-36 months should be enough to get most countries back on track before handing back to the politicians (to screw up again).

But, none of that is EVER going to happen while humans remain, well, human.

Australia is currently in the strongest position economically of any developed economy in the world. You might not like the current government but they have steered Australia through a period of massive global economic turmoil very successfully. I'd rather live in Australia at the moment than just about anywhere else. Australia doesn't need any independent financial experts to fix its financial problems because it's problems are tiny compared to just about every other developed economy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd argue that the current Australian government has not done one single thing to steer Australia through a period of massive global economic turmoil. Even the Kevin Rudd government had little enough to do with Australia being in the position that she is in. What really counts for the Australian economy is having 40 years or more of selling iron ore, natural gas, wheat and wool to China, Japan and the Middle East*


* I know that that's a gross over-simplification but that's what's really saved our arse, not the (barely-existent) policies of the Gillard or Rudd governments.

[copeab]

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory.

The Tiger II also had an unreliable transmission that often left it immobile. And, for some unfathomable reason, the Germans used it to spearhead offensive operations during the Battle of the Bulge (Germany would have been better off deploying all their King Tigers on the Eastern Front).

[Panther Al]

The Tiger II also had an unreliable transmission that often left it immobile. And, for some unfathomable reason, the Germans used it to spearhead offensive operations during the Battle of the Bulge (Germany would have been better off deploying all their King Tigers on the Eastern Front).

Same with the Panzer Brigades. Those formations was tailor made for eastern front conditions with what, in hindsight, was the perfect balance of all the arms in a small agile package. On the eastern front they would have performed very well. But, with the invasion, they was force fed into the grinder that was bocage country. Also, I think they would have been much better off having the 78 SturmDivision in bocage country instead of Orsha on the eastern front, and the Lehr on the eastern front instead of the western. In the initial phases of overlord, the Panzer Division count vs. PanzerGrenadier Division count was obscenely out of balance (Something like 9 to 1, but I don't have my sources handy) Totally the wrong force balance for the conditions.


Which makes one wonder how overlord would have fared with a more reasonable mix of forces on the part of the Germans.

[dragoon500ly]

I believe I owe everybody a sincere appology.
I indicated that the US government should be run using common sense and logic. What the HELL was I thinking!!! :O

Its okay, take a deep breath and let the meds take control! ;)

[Adm.Lee]

Same with the Panzer Brigades. Those formations was tailor made for eastern front conditions with what, in hindsight, was the perfect balance of all the arms in a small agile package. On the eastern front they would have performed very well. But, with the invasion, they was force fed into the grinder that was bocage country.

I'd need to check, but I'm pretty sure the 100-series brigades didn't show up on the Western Front until the early September counterattacks. They weren't even authorized until very late July or early August. That was well after the bocage fighting, they were shattered in the tail end of the pursuit phase in eastern France.


In the initial phases of overlord, the Panzer Division count vs. PanzerGrenadier Division count was obscenely out of balance (Something like 9 to 1, but I don't have my sources handy) Totally the wrong force balance for the conditions.

Which makes one wonder how overlord would have fared with a more reasonable mix of forces on the part of the Germans.

I think part of the German force mix was to create an armored attack force, to drive the landings back into the sea. The restricted terrain and hindrances created by Allied airpower were a bit of a surprise to the German command.

Having said that, PG divisions, set up for defense would seem more ideal for the West. As it worked out, since the panzer divisions were rarely at full tank strength, I think it worked out the same.

I'm playing the Germans in a game of GMT's Battle for Normandy, and what I really need is infantry! If I had a few more divisions of that, I could mass the panzers and try to attack with them. As it is, I've got 3 panzer & 1 PG divisions holding the line in front of the British, too spread out to hit much of anything.

[Panther Al]

I'd need to check, but I'm pretty sure the 100-series brigades didn't show up on the Western Front until the early September counterattacks. They weren't even authorized until very late July or early August. That was well after the bocage fighting, they were shattered in the tail end of the pursuit phase in eastern France.




I think part of the German force mix was to create an armored attack force, to drive the landings back into the sea. The restricted terrain and hindrances created by Allied airpower were a bit of a surprise to the German command.

Having said that, PG divisions, set up for defense would seem more ideal for the West. As it worked out, since the panzer divisions were rarely at full tank strength, I think it worked out the same.

I'm playing the Germans in a game of GMT's Battle for Normandy, and what I really need is infantry! If I had a few more divisions of that, I could mass the panzers and try to attack with them. As it is, I've got 3 panzer & 1 PG divisions holding the line in front of the British, too spread out to hit much of anything.

Now that I had a chance to look, you are right about the brigades. If you all are into what ifs, toss the 78th into it. They had more AT assets in it than can possibly be believed compared to other units of the time.

[Webstral]

There's never enough infantry. The only item in shorter supply than the infantry is good quality infantry. I would argue that high quality infantry is a nation's best MBT, so to speak. The rifles may not be able to force a quick solution the way the tanks can, but they can fight and win under far less favorable conditions.

[Webstral]

I'm not interested in getting into a measuring contest regarding whose nation is the most democratic, has the moral high ground, or what have you. I do grow weary of the cheap shots at the US. If you have something to say, say it instead of sniping as the opportunity arises. Once you snipe, don't get your panties in a bunch when a counter-sniper team is deployed. Emoticons are cutesy, but they're also the tool of choice for teenaged girls who mean to write something hurtful but don't want to be called to account for it. Let's be men. Got a problem with the US? Just say it. I can take it. I'd prefer a straightforward conversation about the things that need improvement with the US (and they are legion) to the cheap shots and sniping, emoticons included or otherwise.

[Panther Al]

There's never enough infantry. The only item in shorter supply than the infantry is good quality infantry. I would argue that high quality infantry is a nation's best MBT, so to speak. The rifles may not be able to force a quick solution the way the tanks can, but they can fight and win under far less favorable conditions.

Thats what I always liked about the 78th Sturm: They was an infantry division that had the KStN's modified to emphasize defensive fighting - and given a priority to draw men and equipment over most other heer units, so the level of the troops was somewhat better than some PzGren units, and about all Gren units. Unlike a lot of units in mid 44, they was awash - being one of the first to draw - with Panzerfausts and Schrecks, each company had a battery of PaK40's (they was supposed to have 6, not 3, but the evidence is sketchy if they ever drew 6, though solid that they got at least 3), with more in the Battalion Weapons Company (Normally, there was only 3 PaK's in each battalion - 78th's battalions had 12 or more), as well as an Organic PanzerJager BN, another PaK Company, and STuG battalion - complete with riders armed with Assault Rifles.

Granted, they was by and large foot infantry, not motorized, but that isn't a fault when it comes to Bocage country. I really believe having this division dug into the Bocage area would have been a stupidly painful unit to dig out.

[ArmySGT.]

What really counts for the Australian economy is having 40 years or more of selling iron ore, natural gas, wheat and wool to China, Japan and the Middle East* I hope so... I am considering moving down there to Perth, and working some jobs about Karratha.

If I can get a work Visa ($350 Aus.) to apply, and the plane ticket is $1200+ US.

Be fun though.

[Targan]

I hope so... I am considering moving down there to Perth, and working some jobs about Karratha.

If I can get a work Visa ($350 Aus.) to apply, and the plane ticket is $1200+ US.

Be fun though.

Mate, good luck to you! There are jobs galore in the NW of Western Australia at the moment. Good money to be had too. I've been out of mining-related industries for some years but if there is any assistance I can offer, PM me and we can swap details.

[ArmySGT.]

Thanks.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator, but I don't have enough experience to compete when the job pool is so small. So I have been building my business related computer skills as an Admin assistant. Not glorious but, it pays my bills.

T-90 vs M-1

T-90 is Toast. That reactive armor is not all that impressive and has been discarded in the west. Jammers have been discarded in the West too.

The West is going to active defenses that shoot down ATGMs. Look to see those on M1A2s in the near future.

[copeab]

The West is going to active defenses that shoot down ATGMs. Look to see those on M1A2s in the near future.

I have doubts on these working all that well in an actual battlefield environment, with fire coming from all directions and smoke and fires all over teh place.

[Panther Al]

I have doubts on these working all that well in an actual battlefield environment, with fire coming from all directions and smoke and fires all over teh place.

The Israeli's have started using it operationally and so far it has lived up to the hype by defeating RPG and AT15 fire.

[Gamer]

Both tanks can kill each other that's quite obvious and that's all that matters.
There are too many variables in combat to just say this tank is superior to that one especially if they have never faced one another in the field only a flag waving fool thinks otherwise.

Panthers and Tigers were deemed "superior" to the Sherman and it didn't do them much good.

Active protective systems are cute toys but seriously in a tank on tank firefight anyone here actually seriously believe the Abrams armor jockeys are actually going to be using HEAT rounds against a T-90?

No APS system in existence does anything but gives a pretty light show when used against a sabot round especially DU.

H.R. 4739 wasn't just between the Army and the Air Force, it also included the Marines.
The Marines were to get A-10s on a 1 to 1 with their OV-10s as well.

SEC. 1439 . REPLACEMENT OF OV-1 AND OV-10 AIRCRAFT WITH A-10 AIRCRAFT

(a) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS- (1) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Army for any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1996, may not be used to operate or maintain OV-1 aircraft.

(2) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Marine Corps after September 30, 1996, may not be used to operate or maintain OV-10 aircraft.

(b) RETIREMENT OF OV-1 and OV-10 AIRCRAFT- (1) Not later than September 30, 1991, the Secretary of the Army shall retire not less than 20 percent of the OV-1 aircraft in the inventory of the Army on October 1, 1990.

(2) The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy shall take such action as necessary to retire, by not later than September 30, 1996, all OV-1 and OV-10 aircraft in the inventory of the Army and Marine Corps, respectively. The Secretary of the military department concerned shall notify the Secretary of the Air Force at the time each such aircraft is retired, and the Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon such notification, transfer one A-10 aircraft and all required support equipment to such military department.

(c) TRAINING AND SUPPORT- Chapter 901 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section :

`Sec. 9316. Training and support for A-10 aircraft

`The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide each military department with flight training, fleet support, and depot maintenance with respect to all A-10 aircraft assigned to each such department.'.

I haven't seen anything repealing this law but also not saying they haven't.
But it would be nice for that mean beast to be kept, it saved my butt more than once.

[ArmySGT.]

I have doubts on these working all that well in an actual battlefield environment, with fire coming from all directions and smoke and fires all over teh place.

Israelis "Iron Fist" on the Merkava 4s has been defeating current generation Russian ATGMs fired from Gaza.

Meaning that ATGMs are going to have to be volley fired, and are getting to be to expensive for that.

[Raellus]

Israelis "Iron Fist" on the Merkava 4s has been defeating current generation Russian ATGMs fired from Gaza.

Meaning that ATGMs are going to have to be volley fired, and are getting to be to expensive for that.

When did Iron Fist first see action? The Lebanon incursion in 2006 resulted in pretty heavy Merkava casualties and most of those tanks killed were taken out by Russian top-attack and/or tandem-warhead ATGMs. This came as quite a shock to the Israelis.

EDIT: Did my own research and it looks like the Israelis started deploying "Trophy" active defense systems in 2010.

Although it's interesting to discuss the effectiveness of such systems in today's world, from a T2K perspective, the matter is largely moot- such active protection systems (aside from "old-fashioned" reactive armor) would most likely not have been fielded in any significant numbers at any point during the WWIII of T2K.

[copeab]

Meaning that ATGMs are going to have to be volley fired, and are getting to be to expensive for that.

You get around that by volley firing (relatively) cheap unguided rockets, depleting the system's ammo, and keep the defense honest by including one or two ATGMs in the batch) so you just can't turn it off. to say ammo from a diversionary' attack.

[Gamer]

When did Iron Fist first see action? The Lebanon incursion in 2006 resulted in pretty heavy Merkava casualties and most of those tanks killed were taken out by Russian top-attack and/or tandem-warhead ATGMs. This came as quite a shock to the Israelis.

EDIT: Did my own research and it looks like the Israelis started deploying "Trophy" active defense systems in 2010.

Although it's interesting to discuss the effectiveness of such systems in today's world, from a T2K perspective, the matter is largely moot- such active protection systems (aside from "old-fashioned" reactive armor) would most likely not have been fielded in any significant numbers at any point during the WWIII of T2K.

The "trophy" system is the only such system on some of the MK4, "Iron fist" has not been fielded to date.
IMI and Rafael had been ordered to combine their two systems into one system for use on Israeli platforms as the defense ministry refuses to fund two seperate systems.
The only thing really keeping "Iron Fist" as an ongoing separate entity now is U.S and a couple others interest in the system.

[Panther Al]

When did Iron Fist first see action? The Lebanon incursion in 2006 resulted in pretty heavy Merkava casualties and most of those tanks killed were taken out by Russian top-attack and/or tandem-warhead ATGMs. This came as quite a shock to the Israelis.

EDIT: Did my own research and it looks like the Israelis started deploying "Trophy" active defense systems in 2010.

Although it's interesting to discuss the effectiveness of such systems in today's world, from a T2K perspective, the matter is largely moot- such active protection systems (aside from "old-fashioned" reactive armor) would most likely not have been fielded in any significant numbers at any point during the WWIII of T2K.

Heavy losses? While a number of tanks was hit with at weapons (around 50), only 10 crew was killed: and of those 50, only 2 was total losses: the rest was repaired and returned to service.

[Grimace]

Heavy losses? While a number of tanks was hit with at weapons (around 50), only 10 crew was killed: and of those 50, only 2 was total losses: the rest was repaired and returned to service.

In terms of a war, what you described wouldn't be considered heavy losses. In terms of a battle, that is quite heavy losses as I'm sure every one of those tanks was removed from action for some time.

The fact that crews survived and vehicles were repaired speaks more to the tank design rather than their protection against ATGMs.

[Raellus]

Heavy losses? While a number of tanks was hit with at weapons (around 50), only 10 crew was killed: and of those 50, only 2 was total losses: the rest was repaired and returned to service.

Considering that the IDF believed the Merkava IV to be pretty much invulnerable to modern ATGM systems, then yes. Considering that the IDF was engaging an unconventional force without access to its own MBTs, then yes also. Merkava losses in the 2006 Lebanon incursion came as quite a shock to the IDF. By all subjective measures, the IDF considered their MBT losses to be rather heavy. To the U.S. perhaps, 50 tanks temporarily disabled and 10 crew killed would be small peanuts but to a smaller nation like Israel, those numbers are significant, especially considered the time and money they've invested in both tank building and crew training.

[pmulcahy11b]

The "trophy" system is the only such system on some of the MK4, "Iron fist" has not been fielded to date.
IMI and Rafael had been ordered to combine their two systems into one system for use on Israeli platforms as the defense ministry refuses to fund two seperate systems.
The only thing really keeping "Iron Fist" as an ongoing separate entity now is U.S and a couple others interest in the system.

If the US military was smart and not just wanting to keep defense contractors happy and well-fed, they would have bought into Trophy from the Israelis, or traded Israel for some of the more interesting stuff they want more of, like JDAMs and Apaches. Have our defense contractors and DARPA work on Trophy with the Israelis -- with US R&D dollars, Trophy might have been fielded sooner and might be an even more effective system.