Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: M-1 vs T-80

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> RE: M-1 vs T-80 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 2:25:28 AM   
MikeAP

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Because that's not what the war against Iraq showed. The M1A1HA version was knocked by RPG's and Iraqi T-72's. Will need to check the model. I agree, not many, but an Iraqi T-72 is a kitten compared to a Soviet T-80BV or T-80U.


Good Hunting.

MR


How many? I'll answer... 2x M1A1s.

One was a mobility kill by an unconfirmed weapon. Not sure where you're getting information on the tank vs tank loss.

More importantly, how many US KIA?


< Message edited by MikeAP -- 10/23/2013 2:28:11 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 31
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 2:34:39 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
No, more importantly those were Iraqi made monkey versions of T-72's. That would be the same as us giving someone an M60A1 and then say that because those are obviously so bad the M1A1 in US forces hands are going to be bad too.

There must have been some reason for NATO to consider that they could finally fight the WP to a draw until 1989; and not before that.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 10/23/2013 2:45:36 AM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 32
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 2:51:58 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
All our data is compiled from multiple sources. Checked and cross checked if possible. Of course, that can get frustrating when you are dealing with classified information.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 10/23/2013 3:36:01 AM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 33
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 3:23:42 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
And Gent's the beauty of the game is you can go edit the data, make you own scenarios and play the game to your liking.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 34
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 6:35:22 AM   
apd1004


Posts: 158
Joined: 8/1/2006
Status: offline
Didn't take long for the M1 vs. T80 argument to start. The scenarios we have with the game take place in 1989. The base M1A1 was being fielded at the time and so was the T-80U. The two tanks never met on the battlefield and never will. We can talk all day about what happened in Iraq but as has already been mentioned there were no T-80U's in Iraq in 1991 or 2003.

1989 was an interesting time period because there were several technologies that were in their first or second generation and had not yet been tested in battle. The M829 120mm APFSDS round was first generation in 1989, which we discovered years later through testing would have been degraded by the ERA on the T-80 even though ERA was intended to defeat shaped-charge rounds rather than kinetic. The M829 still would have been effective, just not as effective as we thought. I think the Russians would have also discovered the same thing about ERA. The TIS and manual loader with a cartridge round on the M1 gave us a great advantage as far as fire control systems go, but there are still cons to that as well. I was an M60A3 tanker for almost 3 years in Germany and I can tell you that the TTS on the M60A3 was far superior than the first generation TIS on the M1. Even with the better TTS, I still spent many hours at Graf on "Fog Watch" because we couldn't make out the range fans or targets in heavy fog. Crystal clear perfect visibility is the exception more than the rule in Germany at any time of year. I'm sure there are forum members who live there that can back me up on that. Fog and WP based smoke or smoke from heat sources DO affect thermal imaging systems. And, the problem with being able to put more rounds downrange in an M1 means you're going to burn through your basic load a lot quicker and when you go black on ammo then you are no longer in the fight.

Long story short, they still teach at the operational level military schools that all things being roughly equal, you still need a minimum 3-1 advantage on the offense just to achieve even chances of winning. That didn't change when the M1 and T-80 came online, and neither one of those tanks are what anyone who studies military history would call a "revolution in warfare". I think the game pretty accurately models this. My M1A1's are popping turrets off T-80's like crazy but every now and then the T-80 gets an M1, and then I see the "R" in the lower right hand corner and my M1 has to back off to resupply, and hopefully he gets out of there before that T-80 gets close enough to even the playing field in his favor. The key is getting a local advantage greater than 3-1 as the attacker or upsetting the attacker advantage in the defense. That is what is making this such a great game to me.

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 35
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 11:53:09 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
+1 apd1004! Very well said.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to apd1004)
Post #: 36
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 6:28:04 PM   
Vyshka


Posts: 275
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Chandler, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.



What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR



I don't think the West had much of a choice. The quantity route was not politically feasible for them, and probably would have caused even more fiscal issues than the quality route did.

_____________________________

"When they get in trouble they send for the sonsabitches" - Adm. King

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 37
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 8:38:37 PM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vyshka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.



What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR



I don't think the West had much of a choice. The quantity route was not politically feasible for them, and probably would have caused even more fiscal issues than the quality route did.


The defense of Western Europe was primarily a political problem, as in, the only way to win was to make sure war never happened. So in that respect at least, ramping up the quality of NATO hardware sent a strong message, and kept the opportunity cost of any "adventurism" too high. It still took an increase in numbers as well, but you're right that there was never any intent, or possibility, of matching the Pact man for man or tank for tank.

Still, I'd rather not run into EITHER an M1 or a T-80 in a dark alley....

(in reply to Vyshka)
Post #: 38
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/23/2013 9:09:35 PM   
kipanderson

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 8/27/2001
From: U.K.
Status: offline
Hi,

BTW.... in many a way there is not that much to argue about. Discuss yes.. but not really argue.

The data on ‘80s equipment is out there and largely fully known. Soviet tanks do compared very well, sometimes better, than western tanks when you compare like for like. I could read off the figures for many. As someone mentioned earlier in the early ‘90s a T72B with the heavy ERA used by the T80U did prove to be able to with stand the 120mm gun over the forward arc. And... BTW with the later model of penetrator being used in the test than was used up to ’89.

All good stuff,
All the best,
Kip.

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 39
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/24/2013 2:24:58 AM   
OldSarge


Posts: 642
Joined: 11/25/2010
From: Albuquerque, NM
Status: offline
As MR mentioned, separating the classififed data from the publicly available is often difficult. However, the following article should be a useful analysis of the M-1 (presumably all pre-TUSK) performance in an urban environment..enjoy!

M-1 performance Iraqi Freedom 2003


< Message edited by OldSarge -- 10/24/2013 2:30:08 AM >


_____________________________

You and the rest, you forgot the first rule of the fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
Jeffrey Sinclair, "Infection", Babylon 5

(in reply to kipanderson)
Post #: 40
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/24/2013 3:22:22 AM   
Rob322

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline
I believe the Sovs had DU rounds for their tanks, Iraq didn't. One source I found suggested the some of the sabot rods the Iraqis were using weren't even Tungsten, just simple steel. We probably could've handled them with M60s. The Gulf War isn't a great comparison for. Central Europe.

(in reply to OldSarge)
Post #: 41
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 10/24/2013 12:00:16 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I really wouldn't want to see the M1a1 even more powerful..the tank kill ratio looks fine to me..the Russians loose a shed load the Allies not so many. Any more powerful the Russian tank force would be totally useless. Which I'm sure it wouldn't have been.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rob322)
Post #: 42
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 6:54:39 PM   
Kommissar


Posts: 20
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline
Just some info I've come across concerning Cold War Soviet tank development and performance over the years. I just wanted to share it with the devs or anyone interested.

1) The first piece is an article from Jane's. When I first read it, I was rather surprised. I went to another forum full of grogs to confirm if the article indeed appeared where it said it came from. Actually, kipanderson from this board was a member of that board as well and confirmed that the article was genuine. This is what the article said:



Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex.


2) The second piece of info is from another poster responding to my thread about the above article. I thought it was pretty amazing stuff from someone who apparently worked in the industry during that time. I'm sure kipanderson will recognize the name:


I have written repeatedly on this matter over the years. See, for example, the Syrian TO&E thread. The shocking conclusion of the 1985 Defense Science Board Summer 1985 Study was that the U.S. was in big trouble on both sides of the armor/antiarmor battle. Russians could penetrate ours, but we couldn't penetrate theirs. Only the Hellfire missile was deemed still semiviable; TOW, Dragon and LAW were all basically useless, incapable of a frontal kill vs. even an ERA equipped T-55, never mind anything more modern. The situation was no better with the then standard NATO 105mm tank gun--firing anything. Without going into details, the capability of Russian ERA to defeat long rod penetrators, as well as HEAT, was known in the mid 80s. Of course, the Maverick was fine. Hard to defeat a 173 lb. shaped charge on something with most of the KE of a battleship round!

I was at Hughes Missile Systems Group working as the in house threat specialist when the news broke, and many were in shock. Out of this came a crash effort to revive the TOW. First came ITOW (Improved TOW) with a standoff probe to enhance penetration, followed by TOW 2, with a revised guidance scheme (thermal IR usable through smoke and dust in addition to usual xenon beacon, which isn't) full caliber redesigned advanced warhead and a standoff probe, followed by the TOW 2A with ERA stripping precursor charge, followed by TOW 2B (top attack via low overflight and downward firing charge directed into thin roof armor).

My now retired brother was in the 2/11 ACR as a Bradley commander in the late 80s in Germany. He was shown a plain TOW 2 and told, "If you ever are issued one of these, it's war." Best he ever had was ITOW. Our nightmare at Hughes was a lead attack wave of ERA equipped T55s attacking behind advanced obscurants I describe below, followed by the good stuff. We would've been out of TOWs in short order and would then have been facing slews of Russian armor in its own optimal firing range.
Numbers tell.

If you're wondering why our mighty M1 (of which we had a handful when there were thousands of T-64s and T-72s in East Germany alone, later T-80s) was in jeopardy, it's because we discovered that the Russians had fielded an answer to a tank we never
produced: the T95 family equipped with sandwich armor made of glass encased in steel (built M60s instead). Guess what the original M1 had? Yep. I know so because I read the declassification notice on the special security status of the M1's vierceous (glass) core armor. The HEAT solution to the M1 was fielded in all sorts of weapons in the 1960s, and we didn't find out until several years AFTER the Yom Kippur War when we performed technical exploitation on ammunition captured by the Israelis. Bear in mind that this ammunition had to be effectively obsolete before Russia would allow it to be exported. The "obsolete" ammo turned out to be able, even in something, say, the size of what the SPG-9 fired, to pierce an M1 frontally. Most ungood, as my father would say.

While we're used to seeing steel penetrators in Saddam's HVAPFSDS round, the Russians long had tungsten and had DU long rod penetrators operational in quantity by the 1980s. Per Suvorov's INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY, steel penetrators are monkey models reserved for ignorant foreign purchasers and wartime extreme demands when putting something into battle is better than nothing. Ditto the armor arrays on export tanks, at least, during the Cold War. Suvorov's list of the differences between a Russian BMP and the monkey model should prove most enlightening and is broadly applicable to the whole export weapon issue. The Kornet's the closest the U.S. has ever come to modern front line Russian antiarmor weaponry.

Other nasty discoveries included better explosives
than we had, wave shapers for HEAT rounds (enhanced penetration) and the discovery that Russian HEAT warheads were designed to take advantage of their own momentum. We, though, tested HEAT warheads statically, resulting in an understatement of their penetration by some 30-40%. 30-40%! To this, add broadband obscurants capable of defeating all sorts of surveillance and targeting means, denying us long range kills critical to whittling down the armored horde, hard kill tank defense weapons, such as Drozhd, new generations of antimateriel warheads capable of shredding Bradleys the way the BM-21 was designed to shred M113s (deliverable by long range MRLs and TBMs), etc. And don't forget all those flying tanks (HIND and FROGFOOT)!

SIDEBAR

NATO airbases were vulnerable to all kinds of Russian munitions for killing TAB V aircraft shelters, they had loads of rocket boosted runway busters (we had to buy France's Durandal and develop others), ARMS to take out NATO radar, etc. And lots more SAMs than we thought they had! The air defense system was not only vulnerable to what I've described, but also to jamming, was readily saturable, and was a prime target for Spetsnaz.
AWACS, for example, was only at one airbase.

END SIDEBAR

The U.S. spent BILLIONS on a crash get well armor/antiarmor program. AT-4 replaced LAW after even ILAW (Improved LAW) seemed hopeless. Dragon suffered the same fate, eventually being replaced by Javelin. We've already discussed TOW, now about to go wireless. The M1 was upgunned to the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore and coupled with our uber round: the "Silver Bullet" which went through crash development and deployment. Did you notice that before the Desert Storm Hail Mary attack jumped off, every vanilla M1 in that effort was pulled and replaced by M1A1HAs (120mm gun and DU armor array) sent straight from V Corps in Germany? We sent our very best against monkey model T-72s because our standard M1s could've been killed frontally by weapons which would amaze you with their mundaneness. Every tank family from T-55 up had a gun launched ATGM version, and artillery (including mortars and MRLS) was widely equipped with precision guided munitions.

The above is a partial list of just how bad things were, and this is without factoring in the massive espionage penetrations of the 1980s, which meant that they were reading our mail, knew where our nukes and chemical munitions were in Europe, could read much of our classified message traffic in real time, trail our SLBMs, etc.

Hope this was useful.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ June 28, 2007, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 43
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 7:20:57 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Great information. Thanks for posting this. I had read about the first round of tests of our weapons against T- 72s and the inferiority of the 105mm guns. I guess I can feel better about our ERA modeling and long rod degradation effects we use.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Kommissar)
Post #: 44
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 7:25:03 PM   
trebcourie

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kommissar

Just some info I've come across concerning Cold War Soviet tank development and performance over the years. I just wanted to share it with the devs or anyone interested.

1) The first piece is an article from Jane's. When I first read it, I was rather surprised. I went to another forum full of grogs to confirm if the article indeed appeared where it said it came from. Actually, kipanderson from this board was a member of that board as well and confirmed that the article was genuine. This is what the article said:



Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz


Others claim that is a fake article:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&&p=535280&page=97#entry535280


(in reply to Kommissar)
Post #: 45
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 7:28:38 PM   
trebcourie

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kommissar

Just some info I've come across concerning Cold War Soviet tank development and performance over the years. I just wanted to share it with the devs or anyone interested.

1) The first piece is an article from Jane's. When I first read it, I was rather surprised. I went to another forum full of grogs to confirm if the article indeed appeared where it said it came from. Actually, kipanderson from this board was a member of that board as well and confirmed that the article was genuine. This is what the article said:



Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz


Others claim that is a fake article:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&&p=535280&page=97#entry535280




To be more precise:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?127544-Jane-s-Impenetrable-Russian-Tank-Armour-Stand-Up-to-Examination/page5&s=ce02ec2723777aa7a24f09289afa6912

Hi,
I found my hard copy of the article written by Richard Ogorkiewicz for IDR July 1997. In essence the first two paragraphs of the material published on the Sino-defence site are from the article, the remainder is not. Funnily enough, I attended the SMi Armour/Anti-Armour conference in 1997 where Leyland Ness gave his presentation. That's why it sounded so familiar. His information where treated with a mixture of scepticism and concern. Richard Ogorkiewicz treated Mr Ness's information with respect, as it matched material originally released at an earlier syposium at the Royal Military College at Shrivenham by Martin Held, the leading light behind ERA.

So, in conclusion. The material on the Chinese site, or at least the first two paragraphs, is based upon an article published in 1997. The rest of the text on the Chinese site was not written by Richard Ogorkievicz but does represent the views held in 1997 by a defence correspondent called Leyland Ness.

I know Richard Ogorkiewicz and have enormous respect for him. If you look at page 56 of my book "Merkava a History of Israel's Main Battle Tank" you will see a photo of Richard Ogorkiewicz and General Tal kindly given to me by Richard from his private collection. Just to reiterate, he does not belittle Russian equipment, (nor do I) but the material on the Chinese site is in the main, not from his 1997 article.

cheers
Marsh

(in reply to trebcourie)
Post #: 46
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 7:36:05 PM   
Plodder


Posts: 1001
Joined: 7/28/2003
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
The Janes article is a fake. It's been discussed at Tank.net and various other places. Google it and see. Also, I'm loathe to speak ill of anyone when they can't defend themselves but John Kettler is the resident conspiracy theorist over at BFC and has to taken with an extremely large dose of salt.

_____________________________

Gen. Montgomery: "Your men don't salute much."
Gen. Freyberg: "Well, if you wave at them they'll usually wave back."

(in reply to Kommissar)
Post #: 47
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 8:14:38 PM   
Kommissar


Posts: 20
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline
Easy enough to confirm. Does anyone have a copy or access to Jane's IDR from July 2007? I don't so I can't personally make sure the article is totally accurate word for word. Kipanderson, any chance you still have that laying around and double check that the article is completely accurate or not?

From what I just read on the other sites about this particular article, the article is fake but the claims that the better ERA equipped Soviet tanks could withstand frontal hits from our best weapons which caused a bit of a panic to develop better ammo and get that distributed (in limited quantities). So basically the article is not genuine, but the basic claims are still actually correct? If so, that is just odd. I normally expect a fake article to make false statements for the most part. If anyone with the reference in question could confirm or not I would appreciate it.

*addition: Further searching from this forum http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?127544-Jane-s-Impenetrable-Russian-Tank-Armour-Stand-Up-to-Examination/page5 seems to conclude that: 1) The article does exist, but it was actually written in 1997 and not 2007 and 2) The first two paragraphs are quoted from the article correctly, but the rest is actually from the conclusions of another defense correspondent named Leyland Ness. The article by Richard Ogorkiewicz is in Jane's International Defense Review for July 1997.

Basically, the findings are accurate, but the original quoter referenced the article wrong and included findings from another totally different author without giving proper credit.

< Message edited by Kommissar -- 3/3/2015 12:23:42 AM >

(in reply to trebcourie)
Post #: 48
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 9:25:03 PM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
The article makes no sense. Many of the t-72s used by the Iraqis were soviet exports. The 120mm sabot rounds often penetrated the dirt berm in front of them, them into one side of the t72 and out of the other. Not much is going to stop a depleted uranium dart moving at 5,000 FPS

As for the Soviets beating NATO until 1989, who could know? There is more than just weaponry...western strategy and tactics (decentralized) vs the soviet centralized structure. I haven't read any US defense publications indicting that they doubted NATO could win until 1989. That prediction relies on the assumption that if a soviet advance reached te Rhine, NATO would quit. Waaaayy to many variables to make any prediction

(in reply to Kommissar)
Post #: 49
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/4/2013 9:37:05 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
In the mid-70's I know we, weren't expected to win, that the best we could hope for was to hold on long enough for the rest of NATO to come in and stop the offensive.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 50
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 1:00:25 AM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 906
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
I'm going to weigh in here, having ridden some of the last of the M1A1D's - with the armor pack equivalent to the HAs in game.

The composite armor is no freakin joke. I don't know what a 125mm would do to it, but the only thing I've ever seen actually penetrate the turret was a 16" EFP (from the side no less), and even that barely knocked the fire control computer off inside. Hull penetration I've only seen an RPG-29 (tandem 105mm HEAT warhead) penetrate from the side. I had a tank take an RPG-29 to the turret face and continue to fight (though naturally, the tank needed repairs later).

The only kills I've seen smaller munitions achieve would be "fall outs", and usually they only lasted until the track could be fixed or the batteries could be reconnected. Replacing skirts was another common issue, but hardly debilitating.

I tend to think that the 125mm HEAT and KE rounds would not be generating many K-kills from the front, though shattered optics, jammed turrets, and other "fall out" type kills would be likely, especially after multiple hits. The flank would likely be something else, especially hull hits. The turret is pretty solid, but that engine is chock full of lines and connections that can be seriously degraded or broken by a massive impact on the upper hull. Maybe still not "round goes in and causes catastrophic explosion", but enough for a "fall out" kill easily.




(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 51
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 1:36:21 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Russia knew NATO would respond with Nukes which is why they planned for a sudden overwhelming attack by huge numbers winning before the US and allies had a chance to respond. Russia wanted to avoid Nukes at all costs. NATO was relying on tac nukes to stop the Russian flood.

Funny really when I was a kid it was always the Russians going to nuke us..yet really it was NATO more willing to Nuke someone they they where. I suppose Russia wouldn't want contaminated land on their borders where as the USA was far enough away from the battlefield to not be bothered whether a few tac nukes went off.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

In the mid-70's I know we, weren't expected to win, that the best we could hope for was to hold on long enough for the rest of NATO to come in and stop the offensive.

Good Hunting.

MR



_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 52
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 1:54:29 AM   
Kommissar


Posts: 20
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Russia knew NATO would respond with Nukes which is why they planned for a sudden overwhelming attack by huge numbers winning before the US and allies had a chance to respond. Russia wanted to avoid Nukes at all costs. NATO was relying on tac nukes to stop the Russian flood.

Funny really when I was a kid it was always the Russians going to nuke us..yet really it was NATO more willing to Nuke someone they they where. I suppose Russia wouldn't want contaminated land on their borders where as the USA was far enough away from the battlefield to not be bothered whether a few tac nukes went off.




In the original Flashpoint Germany game, I noticed that the AI for NATO was way eager to use chemical weapons. I figured it was an overanxious AI doing something because it could do it. I wonder if the devs made it that way because of what you are saying about NATO's willingness for first use of weapons of mass destruction.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 53
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 2:06:28 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
Chemical weapons use has been completely redone in FPC. We have a member of the development team that was a chemical officer during his service. That went a long way in determining how things actually worked and what didn't.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Kommissar)
Post #: 54
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 10:55:40 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
That and also talking during development with a Warsaw Pact chemical officer too. amazing who and what you find doing these kind of games.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 55
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 11:25:21 AM   
cbelva


Posts: 1843
Joined: 3/26/2005
Status: offline
Chemical weapon use by the AI has been taken out of his hands at in the current state of the game. Chemical weapons are a part of the game, but even in the Warsaw Pact, it is doubtful that the decision to use the weapons would be made at the level that is portrayed in this game. The decision to use and how they are used is in the hands of the scenario designer. The way the AI threw chemical weapons around in the origninal Flashpoint Germany really bothered me. It was not doctrinally sound. I told Rob that he could have been brought up on war crime charges for it. That being said, I would like to see a little freedom be given to the AI in a future version to launch a "limited" number of non-persistent attacks on its own just for shock effect in the game and to add to the uncertainty element the player has to face.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 56
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 8:39:54 PM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
I NATO armies, the decision to author rise the release of chemical weapons would be made at higher levels however once it was decided to authorize the release the decision of when where and how to release of chemical weapons would be left up to the local commanders

(in reply to cbelva)
Post #: 57
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 9:54:59 PM   
nepejke

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/5/2013
Status: offline
MR FIX this PLEase

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 58
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 10:05:16 PM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nepejke

MR FIX this PLEase


Fix what? :) I vote for global warming.

(in reply to nepejke)
Post #: 59
RE: M-1 vs T-80 - 11/5/2013 10:10:11 PM   
nepejke

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/5/2013
Status: offline
M1A1 damage. SO OP

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> RE: M-1 vs T-80 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.860