T-90 vs Abrams

[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]

Originally Posted by Grimace

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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!

[James1978]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by James1978

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.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Grimace

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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Grimace

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]

Originally Posted by copeab

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.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.