T-90 vs Abrams

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

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]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

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]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

"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]

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.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

"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]

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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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]

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.

[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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

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!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.