Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe?

Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (Full Version)

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

Message

Xenomorph -> Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/1/2014 2:17:54 AM)
After seeing the devastation piled on the Iraqi army in the Gulf wars I wondered if the Soviets were thankful they never faced off directly with Nato. But after playing this game a bit I'm seeing how the advanced technology of western forces may not have been so well suited for the rolling hills of Europe v the open deserts of the Gulf. Probably the toughest aspect for me playing the Nato side is finding decent fields of fire for bringing the longer range Nato weapons to bear before the Soviets get within range of their own weapons. Once they do the damage ratios seem to pretty much even up. I'm not sure what Nato could have done differently but there's such a knowledgeable crowd on this forum I was wondering your thoughts. Thanks!

MikeAP -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/1/2014 2:41:07 AM)
I'm biased, due to my background. The Abrams is a well-rounded tank, but modern weapons are devastating against any vehicle. Tanks arent miracle vehicles, and the Abrams is no exception. The protection of the M1A2 doesn't come into play until the mid-90s, but the true threat is it's offensive firepower and ammunition series of the M829 ammunition.

Mad Russian -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/1/2014 3:19:07 AM)
Mike, that's about the most unbiased opinion I've seen in awhile. And about as accurate as it gets. Soviet tanks were built specifically to fight NATO tanks. Their doctrine is to get in close and fight in a phone booth. With that in mind if they manage to make that work they will hurt you. Good Hunting. MR

Xenomorph -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/2/2014 4:02:20 PM)
Thanks. Another - more theoretical - question if I could. With apologies to Mike, I'm wondering if possibly armored units in their present form will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future. I'm thinking of the Civil War's Nathan Bedford Forrest quote when asked why he was such a good commander and he responded "get there first with the most men". That sentiment obviously still holds true and it seems to me would be best implemented via air mobile forces. Plus with the power of highly portable and effective anti-armor weapons I'd think the tank's days would've been numbered long ago. I wouldn't think heavy armored units would go away completely but that they'd become more of a specialty force used where they can be most effective (such as for brief operations where they can take and hold key locations before an enemy would have time to bring effective AT assets to bear). Somewhat how Ranger units are used today; a crude comparison but the best one I can think of at the moment. I believe our military leaders today, contrary to the "Rambo" label some place on them, are extremely smart and dedicated men and women but I'm wondering if they're stuck "inside the box" on this one. Thanks for any thoughts on the subject!

Flef -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/2/2014 4:15:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xenomorph After seeing the devastation piled on the Iraqi army in the Gulf wars I wondered if the Soviets were thankful they never faced off directly with Nato. But after playing this game a bit I'm seeing how the advanced technology of western forces may not have been so well suited for the rolling hills of Europe v the open deserts of the Gulf. Probably the toughest aspect for me playing the Nato side is finding decent fields of fire for bringing the longer range Nato weapons to bear before the Soviets get within range of their own weapons. Once they do the damage ratios seem to pretty much even up. I'm not sure what Nato could have done differently but there's such a knowledgeable crowd on this forum I was wondering your thoughts. Thanks! Nobody knows but 3rd gen MBT are meant to sustain ATGMS, not tanks shells. Starting from that, I suppose that a T80 vs M1 match is bit out of question. Most 2nd gen MBT can take out a M1 or T80 but M1 and T80 can simply stomproll a defensive position made of Konkurs/Tow.

IronMikeGolf -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/2/2014 5:02:34 PM)
A lot was published along these lines (cheap ATGMs vs expensive tanks) following the Yom Kippur War. Before T80s and M1s and Leopard IIs and Challengers, etc. ATGM systems for dismounted infantry are heavy and complicated. They are also much more vulnerable to suppression or destruction by enemy direct and indirect fires. These are not LAWs or Panzerfausts with increased range and lethality that you can pass out to everyone like candy. Did I mention these things are heavy? Ever hump a Dragon, Javeline, or 90mm recoilles? A Javelin with CLU is on the order of 50 lbs. The weight consideration play a part in the tradeoff between range and lethality. A guy can only carry so much. The tradeoff is between size of warhead and propellant. Longer range = smaller warhead. Currently, range for a man-portable (luggable?) ATGM is on the order of 2000 meters. To reach out further, you need a bigger missile. One that don't fit in a ruck. I've done light infantry vs the mongrel hoards of NTC. It ain't fun. At all. The MBT is gonna be around for a while.

Flef -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/3/2014 8:38:36 PM)
You should have prosecuted the US army for the Dragon serie. A milan is better in every aspect and lighter.

IronMikeGolf -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/3/2014 9:20:15 PM)
You do not have to say anything to persuade me that the Dragon sucked. I'd rather have the M67, even though it has half the range and slightly less penetration.

Hexagon -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/4/2014 9:21:11 AM)
Is an interesting question... maybe here i allways see this like NATO 80s tanks were made thinking in use well trained crews, 1st by profesional tankers and 2nd by reserve tank crews that have the base in their training but in the end they want every tank count, and WP center more in have tanks with good numbers BUT with with a true Achieles heel in crews... soviets had good tanks BUT true is these tanks never was at quality level of NATO designs because they asume they are going to be the attackers and suffer a big number of casualties made not a lot sense have fine tanks for with luck average crews. When we talk about tanks we need think in WHO ride them and we have 2 things that are clear for me, no sense in have good tanks with bad crews or have bad tanks with good crews, you need both be balanced or good both or average both, in the moment you have one over the other you are doing something stupid because or waste good hardware with bad "software" or you waste good software with bad hardware. The question with ATGM is for me similar to the AT guns in WWII... first have enough power to deal easy with tanks at the point be more powerfull, in middle war both improve their performance and AT guns start to be bigger and bigger but continue wining... but in late war tanks won because AT guns be excesive big to adapt to tanks and even more last models start to be to strong for AT guns... maybe with ATGM we have some similar, to deal with tanks at range you need a big misile, to big to be used in small infantry units and with necesity of his own transport... more like an old AT gun (big AT gun like 88-90mm or soviet 100mm), in close combat ... well, nothing new here only that tanks now are less "blind" in these situations. Tanks are now very usefull and sure continue as "top dogs" in battlefield... at least until we see "soldier tanks", you know, evolution for me is in armored infantry, every soldier is his own tank with an armored suit, not the firepower of a tank but similar and well, try hit one of this with an ATGM could be epic see you trying hit a target with the side of... lest see 2 soldiers moving as a damn cat jumping, hiding or evading in last moment.

zakblood -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/4/2014 10:16:47 AM)
tanks will slip into oblivion like the battleships did in the not so near future, aircraft will all be drones, troops will be robots / drones. and it will or could be in my lifetime just aged 47 atm.

jds1978 -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/4/2014 11:49:52 AM)
There was tons of talk vis-a-vis this (and other topics) during the Cold War. Unlike the previous big European wars, neither side was going to have the time to learn from their design & doctrine errors....you had to have it just right the first time. (just about everyone here, I'm sure, is knowledgeable about this dynamic) The Soviets preferred fast, lighter tanks with hard hitting guns. NATO went for bigger, heavier tanks with high first shot/first kill accuracy and crew training.

mikeCK -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/4/2014 3:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood tanks will slip into oblivion like the battleships did in the not so near future, aircraft will all be drones, troops will be robots / drones. and it will or could be in my lifetime just aged 47 atm. It goes in cycles. For 800 years Heavy Cavalry acted as a "tank" designed to steam roll the enemy line. Eventually it yielded to defense; pikes first and later accurate gunfire. 350 years later, we were back to armored vehicles (instead of armored knights) being used to punch through. Soon something better will come along to stop it

jenrick -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/4/2014 5:32:22 PM)
To address the OP's question of NATO tank design and the cold war: NATO was headed IMO in the right direction with their tank design philosophy. I don't think they had the tanks they needed in the time frame portrayed in FCRS though. NATO was always going to be at a numerical disadvantage due to the fact that any major conflict was going to be a "surprise" in the strategic sense. The western economies weren't going to tolerate the same level of war material focused production that the WP economies would. The US was certainly capable matching production, or even out producing the Soviets when on war footing (such as WW2), but in the time of "peace" that was cold war, there was no way the tank output would match the Soviets. As such we needed MBT's that could kill numerous soviet tanks before they themselves died. In short a large amount of lethality, with a moderate amount of survivability (in the sense of being able to fight on after being hit, not in allowing the crew to survive). Most of the NATO tanks have this, favoring decent armor matched to a good fire control system and a large bore cannon. Ideally each tank would take down numerous WP AFV's and a few tanks before dieing. The big advantage tanks had in this scenario over other tank killing vehicles (ie ATGM carriers) is that they could handle a toe to toe fight with WP MBTs if things went sideways. Obviously the current M1A2, Challenger 2, and LEO 2 exemplify the lethality and survivability concept currently. In the mid 80's the tanks weren't as lethal, and they certainly weren't as survivable. To address the evolution of armored warfare issue being discussed in this thread: There will always be a point where the current weapon systems over come the current armor options. Then the battle field shifts almost 180 degrees to mobility versus protection. Plate armor swiftly went to no armor and stayed that way for centuries until ballistic armor was invented and became effective. Now we continually pile it on our troops and vehicles in ever increasing amounts. Vehicles went away from it with the advent of HEAT warheads, until reactive armor and composite armor again began to allow lighter vehicles to carry acceptable armor. Eventually something man portable will one up that, and it'll go away. Same with infantry armor. As soon as infantry weapons make ballistic protection ineffective we'll be back to patrolling in BDU's and LBE's without 30lbs of armor. -Jenrick

MikeAP -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/5/2014 1:22:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood tanks will slip into oblivion like the battleships did in the not so near future, aircraft will all be drones, troops will be robots / drones. and it will or could be in my lifetime just aged 47 atm. You're wrong. There will be another conventional conflict in your lifetime.

fvianello -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/5/2014 10:25:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MikeAP quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood tanks will slip into oblivion like the battleships did in the not so near future, aircraft will all be drones, troops will be robots / drones. and it will or could be in my lifetime just aged 47 atm. You're wrong. There will be another conventional conflict in your lifetime. Sure thing, and with manned tanks and aircraft. A remote-controlled or unmanned tank has a fatal flaw: the controller is not putting his life on the board, so he'll take risks he'd normally never take, with the net result that the tank loss ratio will go out of control. Game over, no problem, I'll just wait to respawn.

Hexagon -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/5/2014 2:26:48 PM)
Yes and no, the critical are in tank combat is in NATO army types more in lose crews than lose tanks... hardware is relative easy to supply you have them in months (think in a total war scheme... you fight to dont be destroyed, money is only paper and if you need resources... well, Japan in WWII or Germany dont use money to have them no???)... even more, drone system made better tanks using soviet model because you can train crews in real combat situations and they return to fight next day, is harder have a good crew than a tank... and even more hard have a team working as one man, you skip the problem when you lose crews with years of training and need use crews with months of training. Is an interesting point with drones, if you are in a total war lose hardware is less important to the point of have crews all the time "training" and you miss the normal stress in combat because when they lose tank dont need fight to return to their own lines. The point is allways in infantry, maybe we can see in future officials as humans commanding robots... no fear to die and follow orders yes or yes. Well, this is future, and at this point maybe we can see more Black hole Clan VS Radiactive Tribe using sticks and rocks 1.0 [8\|] PD: if you want prevent respawn syndrome you can put a warning in "combat area" that says "if you break it, YOU PAY IT!!!" [:D]

fvianello -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/5/2014 2:46:06 PM)
True, hardware is more expendable than human crews, but the point I wanted to raise is combat efficency. With a division of remote controlled drones you are probably going to lose most of the engagements.

Mad Russian -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/5/2014 5:23:05 PM)
What is the right tank? The Soviets considered that they would have crews that were trained to a lesser degree. So, they made their tanks smaller and faster. They put optics in them that wouldn't require a higher level of training. They did studies to see what kind of fighting the next war would consist of. They weren't going to fight the last war. In addition to that the lessons learned would have to be applied in days, not months and years as in WWII. What they built was a Meeting Engagement tank. One that could fight and win at relatively short engagement ranges. They build the wrong kind of tank to win in the deserts of the Middle East. But did they build the right kind of tank to win in the closer terrain mix of Central Europe? Thankfully we never found out. NATO could be the ones of being guilty of building an army that was fighting the last war. They set their entire organization, tactics and equipment base on the German model of WWII. That model lost the war for Germany. Would the same have been true for NATO in the late 80's? Good Hunting. MR

Hexagon -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/6/2014 10:44:46 AM)
Thats not correct Mad russian, germans lose more for they crazy policy... they do a great job searching enemies but not searching allies... the 3rd reich ideology was the main factor to defeat, not the military performance that deal with the ammount of hard to solve situations they find. To be fair if germans had a better "commander in chief" in 1943-44 in the east they can have at least a stalemate or even defeat soviets... think that with the resources used in east even using they bad a lot of times they were close to defeat soviets and they fight in 2 sites at same time. I think the german/NATO model is superior to soviet model, one thing is start a war and know you are going to suffer casualties and other start the war and know you need suffer a lot of casualties to try win, in the end the human reserves were similar in both sides, even more, NATO had more human reserves, problem was hardware because they need build it, soviets had the hardware and tons of average software... but in the end or they win fast or could find in same situation as germans in 1943-44... curious but the soviets in cold war were similar in situation to germans in 1941, they are stronger than enemy in first contact but need win fast to prevent face full enemy power. The thread is now on the next step... when we start talking about what is better have a big fleet or a single death star [:D]

Flef -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/6/2014 5:19:43 PM)
@MR, It is not that easy. The whole stuff has to be considered under the light of the nuclear deterence.It has driven the tank developpements for decades. Until the second world war, an army could mass its troops and attacks on a particular point of a disposal. Since the nuclear(A and after H) bombs have been developped, it is a lot more complicated. If an army mass its troops it begins to be tempting to launch a warhead. There is even a recoilless gun especially made to throw a warhead. It is called the DAvy Crockett, surely because you need to a bit bold to make detonate a warhead at 300m from your current position. If I remember well the operating manual states "1. dig a trench of 2 yard long and 30 inches high to protect yourself from the explosion" Something like that. And there was the "atomic" long toms, the TNW dropped by planes... So, basically, attacking in these conditons is very hard and it is very likely to provoke the use of weapons of mass destruction with all the consequences. So... why developping costly tanks?All nations built cheap tanks. No exceptions. To have many of them. But until the 60s, only the soviets prepared for the war in Europe. Only after the Europeans and the US started to really think about. The Germans developped the leopard1s, the Frenchs the AMX30s, the Britishs the Chieftains, the Americans the M60s. Less cheap tanks. But still cheap. But they are matching the 2000m range requirement for their gun. No need for a very good armor. Hollow charges are simply too powerfull. A 75mm hollow charge is able to (roughly) pierce 300mm of RHA. So well... let's have not very well protected armor. The AMX30s are surely the best representative tanks of this logic. The Soviets did the same. The T55As are cheap, the T62s are cheap, the T72 less cheap but still cheap. They neglected the optics but put stabilizers on their machines. They put autoloader to reduce the size of their tanks but it is slower than a manual loading. What's best? I don't know. But technically in a tank combat, you don't shot on what you don't see and the first to fire wins. Soviets built Meeting engagement tanks, Western countries built defensive engagement tanks Technological development continued but the tanks are still "cheap". But... Strangely... at a moment everybody developped "heavy" MBTs. The Soviets were again the First. The T64s are surely the first MBTs of the 3rd Generation but the british made the Challys and the Germans the leopard2s. Americans developped the M1s and the soviet ended with the T80s. These tanks are able to sustain ATGMs. ATGMS. ATGMS are a defenisve weapons. Question: why do we have needed these kind of very expensive (in all aspects)toys? Why were we considering to attack through ATGMs and hollow charges? Simply because there was a "window" for a conventionnal war in Europe due to the development of the thermobaric weapons. They are not forbidden or considered as WMD. The West was not getting really the means to launch a successions of thermobaric strikes but the soviets were. Their BM21s (and the polish-Czecoslovakians' RM70s) were able to launch 122mm thermobaric Rocket. A battery of BM21 counts 18 pieces. a single strike is counting 720 rockets. It is able to wipe out any entrenched positions. And then the "big boys" can manoeuver with their big guns. And I'm not even speaking of 300mm rockets of the BM30 or of the mighty TOS1. There was a window for a war. And everybody prepared for it. To end this "TL;DR post", there is one thing to know about each side. They never wanted to attack. The West was fed up with bloody wars and there is no hope to survive a nuclear exchange, the Russians were only wanting to not be invaded again and to fight another bloody war. Russians are obsessed since Napol�onI with the defense of the Rodina. So who built the right tanks? Both sides. They made their jobs to make everybody dangerous.

Werewolf13 -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/7/2014 12:08:32 AM)
Grunts have been trying to figure out since the 1st one hopped on a horse how to make cavalry obsolete. Infantry won't ever be obsolete and the mission of the cavalry won't ever be obsolete either. Fast moving units built for recon and fast moving units built to punch thru what the grunts can't will always be around in one form or another. Hell, the tank might end up like the mobile infantryman wearing a Marauder suit as depicted in Starship Troopers (the book - not the trash hack the movie showed). Who knows - not me. What I do know though is that the cavalry in one form or another will be a part of human combat until the time when there aren't any more humans.

Hexagon -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/7/2014 11:32:36 AM)
I finish some days ago the book to... even when i like it i think the movie is better because has a "Robocop" feeling, more dystopia or at least with a more black humor apart i support the mix armies with mix showers [:D] Maybe this is the future... in the end for war since ancient humans need a mix of mobility+shock and defense against first, now a soldier can offer defense VS mobile troops using terrain and weapons but maybe in future we can see mix in infantry the 3 points... from power suits to big anime style mechas, light and heavy infantry. Well T-64 was far from be a cheap tank... even T-72 the low cost version was excesive if you compared with T-55 serie... the T-62 start a point where soviets need put more money on the table to deal with new NATO designs (not all). In the end in certain moment you need have something closer to enemy, think in WWII and what do soviets to deal with new german tanks... T-34/85 and IS serie ... even with SU and ISU TDs (like germans when have Stugs and other Panzerjager) they need have a tank that can at least stand VS enemy modern vehicles.

loki100 -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/7/2014 12:55:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hexagon Well T-64 was far from be a cheap tank... even T-72 the low cost version was excesive if you compared with T-55 serie... the T-62 start a point where soviets need put more money on the table to deal with new NATO designs (not all). Worth noting that the shift from the approach behind the T54/5 to the T62 also coincided with the major shift of Soviet assumptions about thermonuclear war. The default in the Kruschev years was that any war would go fully nuclear from the start. After Cuba, they started to plan for a dual environment. In effect the T54 was exceptionally robust but can be seen as the final iteration of the T34 concept - its still the tank of choice in all sorts of poor corners of the world. The T62 was devised not just with updated technology but for a new concept of warfare. But, going back to some earlier posts. There was a common assumption in the west, informed by seeing the Great Patriotic War from a German perspective, that the Soviets didn't care about losses and used mass to replace quality. I'm not arguing that the Red Army in 41-45 didn't have its fair share of sociopaths in senior command position, but even so they had to use their resources with care. Red Army doctrine was (to me) based on 3 concepts. The traditional Russian army belief in the power of artillery - this runs back at least to the Seven Years War; a belief in the effectiveness of being the side with initiative (some of this came from Marxist-Leninist doctrine); and, a belief that losses were lower (in the final analysis) when the operational tempo was higher (again a key part of traditional Russian doctrine, Suvorov's 'more sweat on the training ground, less blood on the battlefield'). So their tanks were designed to fit. Artillery would have been critical at suppressing NATO and for breakthrough, attacking was better than being cautious (and like a nation trained to play chess, reinforce success) and the maximum number of AFVs to ensure an operation could be sustained. On that basis the whole series T62/74/80/90 were applications of technology to a concept of military operations.

mikeCK -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/7/2014 11:45:18 PM)
Whether it not the Soviets (or NATO) had the right tank would be irrelevant of they couldn't supply it. I think the Soviets were traditionally a bit heavy in armor and AFVs vs logistical support. NATO identified this issue when it developed it's concept of AIRLAND battle. The idea was to fight while withdrawing and hitting the flanks of the enemy axis of advance. Air assets would be used to disrupt supply. The Soviets could have all the tanks they want but they have to have fuel, ammo, parts and crew supplies. NATO understood that as it was falling back on its supply (and various depots set up in advance) the WP was extending theirs. NATOs problem was whether it could maintain sufficient forces and equipment. This fight is over in 2 weeks. I just don't think in a war as destructive as this war would have been, either side could have sustained any attack that could threaten the enemy. Neither side. NATOs biggest advantage was its strategic position. In essence, it had the USSR "surrounded " and could hit rail lines and supply routes from many directions. I don't think rear echelon units and supplies could have gotten forward in sufficient amounts to sustain anything. NATOs problem was similar...how deep would they have to drive?? Well, deeper than supply would allow likely. With ammo expenditures and destroyed equipment, NATO runs low on everything before the first convoy hits the Atlantic. No way they have the material to support a major attack after a week of fighting. I think the war ends in a stalemate with one side resorting to tactical nuclear weapons ...NATO in particular if Soviet forces concentrated for a final push and NATOs munitions and equipment were low.

Flef -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (5/8/2014 6:34:14 PM)
About the airland battle doctrine Airland battle doctrine (CNA) And about the sovietic doctrine: OMG (that's fun no?) The Operational Manoeuver Group

lwarmonger -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (6/9/2014 1:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian One that could fight and win at relatively short engagement ranges. They build the wrong kind of tank to win in the deserts of the Middle East. But did they build the right kind of tank to win in the closer terrain mix of Central Europe? Thankfully we never found out. NATO could be the ones of being guilty of building an army that was fighting the last war. They set their entire organization, tactics and equipment base on the German model of WWII. That model lost the war for Germany. Would the same have been true for NATO in the late 80's? The thing to also consider was that NATO's weapons development began to shift in the late 70's/early 80's. Tanks can only be made so good before you've reached the point of diminishing returns (which has now been reached). At end state, you get the same battlefield effects at a significantly higher cost as you increase protections by adding armor, defense systems, etc. However, the addition of information systems and an integrated battlefield picture combined with additional enablers means that the tank, integrated into a combined arms unit, can remain extremely useful... and even decisive, for some time to come. That integrated set of adaptable battlefield effects that NATO rolled out in the late 80's/early 90's is what really puts it above the systems the Soviets created.

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (6/9/2014 4:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lwarmonger quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian One that could fight and win at relatively short engagement ranges. They build the wrong kind of tank to win in the deserts of the Middle East. But did they build the right kind of tank to win in the closer terrain mix of Central Europe? Thankfully we never found out. NATO could be the ones of being guilty of building an army that was fighting the last war. They set their entire organization, tactics and equipment base on the German model of WWII. That model lost the war for Germany. Would the same have been true for NATO in the late 80's? The thing to also consider was that NATO's weapons development began to shift in the late 70's/early 80's. Tanks can only be made so good before you've reached the point of diminishing returns (which has now been reached). At end state, you get the same battlefield effects at a significantly higher cost as you increase protections by adding armor, defense systems, etc. However, the addition of information systems and an integrated battlefield picture combined with additional enablers means that the tank, integrated into a combined arms unit, can remain extremely useful... and even decisive, for some time to come. That integrated set of adaptable battlefield effects that NATO rolled out in the late 80's/early 90's is what really puts it above the systems the Soviets created. Systems > weapons, indeed. A German Panzer division in WWII might be reduced to a mere handful of actual, well, Panzers, but as a system it was still a very dangerous fighting force. The USSR might have had thousands of tanks in 1941 that were objectively better than their German counterparts, but the system that employed them was flawed and weak. Likewise, the old reliable M4 Sherman, on paper, isn't much to shout about, but as part of the US system of warfare, it did the job well. It's sort of like sports teams. A team of all stars, the best at their positions, can lose to a better organized, better led group of average players that work as a system. Unfortunately, it's much, much easier to rank and compare stuff than it is systems....

Mad Russian -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (6/9/2014 9:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheWombat Systems > weapons, indeed. A German Panzer division in WWII might be reduced to a mere handful of actual, well, Panzers, but as a system it was still a very dangerous fighting force. The USSR might have had thousands of tanks in 1941 that were objectively better than their German counterparts, but the system that employed them was flawed and weak. Likewise, the old reliable M4 Sherman, on paper, isn't much to shout about, but as part of the US system of warfare, it did the job well. It's sort of like sports teams. A team of all stars, the best at their positions, can lose to a better organized, better led group of average players that work as a system. Unfortunately, it's much, much easier to rank and compare stuff than it is systems.... I couldn't agree with you more. It is very much like a sports team. The team with a lot of average players can often beat the team with a single superstar and the rest of the team being below average. That is where the Sherman lies in my opinion and why NATO went the wrong way for a good while. The Sherman was on a team full of average players. Lots of them. So, if one got tired you called in another one. THOUSANDS OF THEM. The Germans were playing with a few super stars but there were only so many of them and they had to play every play. Sooner or later the average guys won. NATO looked at what the Germans had accomplished and were in awe. That put them to making some bad choices for about 4 decades. At any given time during those 4 decades those choices could have been disastrous. That's my take on both the Sherman tank and the NATO defense posture all rolled into one for you. Good Hunting. MR

jds1978 -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (6/9/2014 11:54:26 PM)
quote: To end this "TL;DR post", there is one thing to know about each side. They never wanted to attack. The West was fed up with bloody wars and there is no hope to survive a nuclear exchange, the Russians were only wanting to not be invaded again and to fight another bloody war. Russians are obsessed since Napol�onI with the defense of the Rodina. THIS ^^^ Right tank; Wrong tank....doesn't matter much. It all would've ended with you, your family and everyone you knew turned into radioactive charcoal. Whatever the survivors there were two generations after wouldn't know who started it, who 'won' or what even happened. (Edit: I don't know why this says it's in reply to MR....its mostly just meta; not a direct reply to Mad Russian)

dassie -> RE: Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe? (6/10/2014 4:10:19 AM)
Xenomorph Good day to you. you have ask a very good question, one which PRC , USA , Russian Fed have been and still are try to work out every time they design a tank. First of let me just say that i don't believe that gulf war's Iraq army are the same as GSFG in East Germany. the tank and aircraft are just not the same as the one the Russian use in Europe (even through they may look a like.) as a example let's take a look at T-72. The t-72 Iraq MBT is not the same as the Russian T-72. the Tank Iraq got is the downgrade of the downgrade vision.(a level down from the Warsaw pack vision and two level down soviet vision) it's fire control are ancient and have not been update unlike m1a1 that got use in T-72 has several vision that server in Soviet army ,T-72A,T-72A+(or SMT 1981/3), B, B1, BM (almost never in Germany through, that is for t-64 and t-80). T-72 have several Export model as well t-72M1, T-72S(or T-72M1M) the Tank that Iraq Got are the T-72m1 which "Featured"[X(] a revised Frontal armor with homogenous steel( instead of laminate steel/ceramic armor), 3bm9 APFSDS homogenous steel round (which can't shoot through the DU armor that M1a1 had) and lot other 'improvement' such as bad sight (the sight is not build in the soviet union, and had even worst quality control) all of this made the Iraq army anything but a good representation of the soviet ground force.the plane it got is even worse than the tank in some way. [image]local://upfiles/39135/C33050A25AB042F2BA662FA4F8B0F534.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.28125