M-1 vs T-80

M-1 vs T-80 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series

Message

Gratch1111 -> M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 12:57:28 AM)
In my World the M-1 is a way better tank, better protected and better gun, but the T-80 in the game feels just a Little bit less capable. To me it would take 2-3 T-80 to 1 M-1 but it more feels like 1,5? Anyone else have an opinion?

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 12:58:39 AM)
Not really. Depends on models, range, sighting conditions etc. as to which one of them is the better vehicle. Good Hunting. MR

Gratch1111 -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 1:11:53 AM)
of course it depends on the situation at hand, but under normal circumstances the M-1A1 is better than the T-80any. I dont feel the game shows that enough.

wodin -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 1:21:07 AM)
Really? The Russians take severe Tank casualties compared to the Allies.

CapnDarwin -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 1:22:22 AM)
A ton of testing went into the combat models and in particular the M1A1 vs. T-80BVs and we find it to be where we like it. The US forces are deadly at range/night/smoke and it becomes an even throw inside 2000m.

mikeCK -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 1:46:20 AM)
I think the the Western Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1A1s are far superior to the T-80. Having said that, actual battlefield results depend on a lot of factors and the expertise/training of units. I think the game does a good job of modeling it. The problem with these games (like AirLand battle) is that people tend to be "Homers" when it comes to their nations gear. try and find a Russian player who thinks the F-15e is superior to the Mig 29...stuff like that. The devs have to try to take that bias out of it. A good example is the Soviet AA-11 AAM. The west assumed it was inferior to the AIM 9m because it was Russian. Turns out is was far superior and some of its design was used in the AIM 9x. So we can't assume what we think is always correct Since the only data we really have is a series of battles between American M1A1s and T-72s. Problem there is you have to factor in that the T-80, although sharing a lot with the 72, had a lot if upgrades as well...not to mention the Soviets had better training and doctrine than the Iraqis....so it's guess work

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 1:50:30 AM)
Look up the ERA called Kontakt 5 and see if you still think the M1A1 is still head and shoulders above a T-80U. The Soviet battle drill was to close the range and get in close. Having a swirling tank battle where tanks start to take hits on the flanks and in the rear and a T-80 is as good as any tank in the world. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23309.aspx#startofcomments Good Hunting. MR

wodin -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 2:34:11 AM)
To be honest AIrLand battle is low down on my list of serious wargames. I really wouldn't compare the two games as this is in a different league altogether.AirLand battle is a game I'd class as arcade rather than a serious sim. Besides that I do see your point. quote: ORIGINAL: mikeCK I think the the Western Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1A1s are far superior to the T-80. Having said that, actual battlefield results depend on a lot of factors and the expertise/training of units. I think the game does a good job of modeling it. The problem with these games (like AirLand battle) is that people tend to be "Homers" when it comes to their nations gear. try and find a Russian player who thinks the F-15e is superior to the Mig 29...stuff like that. The devs have to try to take that bias out of it. A good example is the Soviet AA-11 AAM. The west assumed it was inferior to the AIM 9m because it was Russian. Turns out is was far superior and some of its design was used in the AIM 9x. So we can't assume what we think is always correct Since the only data we really have is a series of battles between American M1A1s and T-72s. Problem there is you have to factor in that the T-80, although sharing a lot with the 72, had a lot if upgrades as well...not to mention the Soviets had better training and doctrine than the Iraqis....so it's guess work

CapnDarwin -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 2:39:45 AM)
Airland is not a "wargame" IMHO. It is a RTS with war like guys running around. It is a fun game.

deadsunwheel -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 2:51:32 AM)
I would also say that the T-80 can credit its low profile and high top speed for some of its durability. At least when led correctly, not like in Gorky. Any tank going into a hostile urban environment without infantry support is going to be demolished. From my point of view the game does a pretty good job of modelling what a modern tank battle could look like. A Soviet tank with a 125mm seems to have to get within 1.5-2km (3 to 4 hexes) to be really effective against NATO armour. On the other side a NATO unit sporting the 120mm Rheinmetall can cause some serious hurt to soviet tanks at about 4km (8 hexes). If it is the 105mm cannon the effective range seems to slip a bit to around 2.5-3km (4 to 5 hexes). This is just from my experience. The lesson when playing as NATO never let a good order Soviet tank company close range or you will pay the price. If 12 T-80s get a shot at optimal range something is going to strike home, better to be facing 4 disorganized remnants when they make their range. For the record I just finished a PBEM of Fulda '85 which showed some of the superiority of the M1 on the field. The US lost 76 M1s (28 KIA) to 254 T-80s (can't remember the split of KIA to Fallen Out) so about 3-1.

deadsunwheel -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 2:53:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin Airland is not a "wargame" IMHO. It is a RTS with war like guys running around. It is a fun game. Agreed. It is so very pretty too. My lack of hand eye coordination prevents me from playing well though. The old Starcraft skills have gone a bit rusty.

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 2:18:51 PM)
Yeah, I have to say that this game gets the armored balance pretty well. I've played pretty much every NATO/WP simulation/game from the SPI days until now, and you never get the perfect matchup that pleases everyone. This is particularly true here because this situation never happened. But I think the results in Flashpoint seem believable to me. A platoon of first-line NATO armor that catches a company of Soviet tanks or APCs at 2500 meters crossing open country will decimate them, with little direct fire damage in return usually. Artillery and rockets, that's another story of course. When that same company of Soviet tanks, though, rolls up out of the rainy fog at point-blank range, in the ensuing melee the Abrams or Leo IIs are going to die. Sure, they'll take some Bears with them, but it won't be pretty. In even matchups, at reasonable range with both sides in some cover, the NATO forces seem to have a slight edge as perhaps they should. Close in, the advantage is with the red forces, again, as it probably should be. 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. And of course, this is all hypothetical. We can talk about armor thickness, composites, fire control technology, and all that, but theory /= practice in war. On a related note, it's interesting to see how little difference in survivability there is between trucks, APCs, and IFVs. Sure, the latter have more offensive punch, but they tend to die just as fast. The Bradleys and BMPs evaporate about as fast as M113s and BTRs. Trucks go even faster, but not that much faster than APCs it seems. Which makes ya wonder if IFVs are actually worth the money [:)] I suspect in many cases they are, but it also makes the case for hordes of BTRs too.

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 2:56:59 PM)
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

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 3:56:55 PM)
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 Yeah, another reason why I'm very glad this game is fiction. I lived in Germany in the 1960s, the 70s, the 80s, and into 1990, first as a dependent (father was US Army) and then ultimately as a civilian contractor. My last assignment there was in Berlin, 1988-90. It's easy at this distance to look at this hypothetical conflict as a cool wargame setting (and it is!) but the reality was that if the balloon went up, it would have been a total frickin' human disaster.

LuckyJim1010 -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 6:27:21 PM)
Most heart stopping quote I ever read, which may be apocryphal, was when an American commander was asked "On Average how far apart are West German towns", the reply came "About 5 Kilotons" Still makes me shudder.

LuckyJim1010 -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 6:30:09 PM)
Sorry to double post but did anyone ever play an old SPI game Called NATO Division Commander ? I had it and loved it. I'm hoping this game will have a bit of that in it. Certainly looks like it.

Hexagon -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 7:53:48 PM)
Problem is that theories need real life to be tested and thanks to God we continue with theories [;)] But if we talk about quality VS quantity... Germany lose in WWII not only by quantity they lose more for strategical KO when lose all his allies, and was sorrounded against practically full world power... in a WWIII is more open at least in the first steps. In tactical part... well, i prefer be in the quality side but only with a commander that understand that is better fight and retreat to counter later than stand and be rolled [:'(]

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 7:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hexagon But if we talk about quality VS quantity... Germany lose in WWII not only by quantity they lose more for strategical KO when lose all his allies, and was sorrounded against practically full world power... in a WWIII is more open at least in the first steps. We were talking about tactical situations as well. It's hard to win strategically when you are losing every battle. quote: In tactical part... well, i prefer be in the quality side but only with a commander that understand that is better fight and retreat to counter later than stand and be rolled [:'(] Here you get to be that commander. We'll see how you do! [;)] Good Hunting. MR

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 8:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyJim1010 Sorry to double post but did anyone ever play an old SPI game Called NATO Division Commander ? I had it and loved it. I'm hoping this game will have a bit of that in it. Certainly looks like it. Yes! This was a great experiment in a command-oriented boardgame. I really thought it was pretty cool.

kipanderson -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 8:17:28 PM)
Hi, Just to reinforce what has already been said. Having dug about a lot in the data files they seem of the same astonishingly high quality all else is here. To directly address the question. M1 v T80B does not and should not give the M1 an overall advantage. M1A v T80U does not and should not give the M1A any particular advantage. Generally if you compare like with like Soviet tanks do find. Normally what happens is that people compare the T72A or T72M with the M1A(HA). They are different generation tanks. The comparison to the T72A or T72M is the M60A1 tank. Topside, M60A3. All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip.

Gratch1111 -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 8:41:33 PM)
Im not saying that the game is terribly unbalanced when it comes to M-1 vs T-80, Im just saying that I Think the odds should be a Little more in favour of the M-1

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 9:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gratch11 Im not saying that the game is terribly unbalanced when it comes to M-1 vs T-80, Im just saying that I Think the odds should be a Little more in favour of the M-1 That's a blanket statement. Odds meaning what? Situation being what? Another issue is there are 3 versions of the M1 Abrams tank. M1 - with a 105mm gun. A mediocre tank. M1A1 - with 120mm gun. Better firepower, improved armor. M1A1 (HA) - up graded armor protection. All three versions are in the game and each has drastically different characteristics from the others. The same with the T-80. There are multiple variants in the game. This is much like saying apples are sweeter than grapes. There are multiple varieties and some are and some aren't. Good Hunting. MR

mikeCK -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 9:56:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin To be honest AIrLand battle is low down on my list of serious wargames. I really wouldn't compare the two games as this is in a different league altogether.AirLand battle is a game I'd class as arcade rather than a serious sim. Besides that I do see your point. quote: ORIGINAL: mikeCK I think the the Western Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1A1s are far superior to the T-80. Having said that, actual battlefield results depend on a lot of factors and the expertise/training of units. I think the game does a good job of modeling it. The problem with these games (like AirLand battle) is that people tend to be "Homers" when it comes to their nations gear. try and find a Russian player who thinks the F-15e is superior to the Mig 29...stuff like that. The devs have to try to take that bias out of it. A good example is the Soviet AA-11 AAM. The west assumed it was inferior to the AIM 9m because it was Russian. Turns out is was far superior and some of its design was used in the AIM 9x. So we can't assume what we think is always correct Since the only data we really have is a series of battles between American M1A1s and T-72s. Problem there is you have to factor in that the T-80, although sharing a lot with the 72, had a lot if upgrades as well...not to mention the Soviets had better training and doctrine than the Iraqis....so it's guess work Okay for the record I never said wargame AirLand Battle was a real wargame or even a good wargame. I brought it up solely to give an example of what happens when people start playing favorites with what weapon systems are better than other weapon systems. mad Russian- I also never said that the M1 A1 was head and shoulders above the t80...what I said was it was a superior tank and it is a superior tank to the t- 80s, how Superior depends on training tactics. implementation, range and all sorts of other factors. But my point was that two different people will bring two separate biases to the table and analyzing weapon systems that have never actually fought each other in a large-scale engagement it's just difficult to put a number on things like that

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 10:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikeCK mad Russian- I also never said that the M1 A1 was head and shoulders above the t80...what I said was it was a superior tank and it is a superior tank to the t- 80s, how Superior depends on training tactics. implementation, range and all sorts of other factors. But my point was that two different people will bring two separate biases to the table and analyzing weapon systems that have never actually fought each other in a large-scale engagement it's just difficult to put a number on things like that I know. I was answering Gratch11's responses not yours. Sorry for the mistake. Good Hunting. MR

mikeCK -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 10:19:53 PM)
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 Well the Germans didn't always have a qualitative advantage over their enemies. many of the early German tanks in particular were far inferior to the they're French and Russian counterparts. The United States did not simply want to use quality, it wanted to use technology as a force multiplier. In addition tactics developed in the 1980s did not have NATO forces sitting motionless in defensive positions like the book red storm rising, rather it had American, British and German formations striking deep into the Soviet rear areas...off the soviet attack axis; thus the need for high-speed maneuverable armored forces. this is where high-tech and high-quality pays dividends. Things didn't work out for the Germans in that area for many reasons, not the least of which was their tanks weren't necessarily higher quality than their enemies and their enemies could far out produce them. The Germans main advantage was training and tactics. in the case of a World War III scenario United States industrial capacity could match Soviet power although it would take a long time. In developing this philosophy the American military looked at the casualty level inflicted by the Germans on the Soviets and decided that such a favorable casually ratio could allow for a victorious war. They felt that the Germans had lost to the Soviets because of operational and strategic level decision-making not because of a lack of vehicles or equipment or personnel

mikeCK -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/22/2013 10:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian quote: ORIGINAL: mikeCK mad Russian- I also never said that the M1 A1 was head and shoulders above the t80...what I said was it was a superior tank and it is a superior tank to the t- 80s, how Superior depends on training tactics. implementation, range and all sorts of other factors. But my point was that two different people will bring two separate biases to the table and analyzing weapon systems that have never actually fought each other in a large-scale engagement it's just difficult to put a number on things like that I know. I was answering Gratch11's responses not yours. Good Hunting. MR Ok, got it!

MikeAP -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/23/2013 1:46:54 AM)
This thread is pure blasphemy. Realistically, the M1A1 would be popping T80 turrets at 3k. M829 would slice through that T80 ERA like butter, and your average American loader can load two round in the time it takes the T80 autoloader to load one. Don't even get me started on fire control systems. Lol! But this is a wargame and that wouldn't be 'fun' Airland Battle is an excellent game and has a beautiful game engine. Mod tools were just released.

Mad Russian -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/23/2013 2:08:11 AM)
So, what are you saying MikeAP? That no M1A1 would have been lost to Soviet tank gunfire in WWIII? [:-] 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. [sm=00000117.gif] Good Hunting. MR

deadsunwheel -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/23/2013 2:19:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MikeAP Realistically, the M1A1 would be popping T80 turrets at 3k. And they do, in fact they do it quite nicely at 4k as well. The question is can they knock out enough before the T-80s close to range. I recall reading somewhere that the Soviet command estimated that the average unimpeded view in Western Germany was something in the order of 500m. By and large that seems to be what causes me the most challenge when playing the NATO side in FPC:RS. Covering those wide open fields is no problem, the difficulty comes when the T-80s crest a hill or burst from a forest already in their threat range. Cobaltium armour can only take so much.

MikeAP -> RE: M-1 vs T-80 (10/23/2013 2:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian So, what are you saying MikeAP? That no M1A1 would have been lost to Soviet tank gunfire in WWIII? Good Hunting. MR We may never know.[:D]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125