the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[DRG]

Good post Marek.

Don

[c_of_red]

'm not going to wade through all this dreck to figure out where this came from so just tell me who is suggesting that experience and morale "affects the ratings of the front hull armor"


Don

Anyone that thinks the Soviets made a 'Monkey model" and the Arabs were dumb enough to buy it or wouldn't know it was a monkey model even after the salesmen for the British, French or German MBT's explained it to them.
I argue that the monkey model thangie is propaganda.
The original tangent that we all wandered off on was that Soviet armor is vastly overrated. As evidence of that I pointed to kill ratios. Mark and others claim it was because of the Monkey Models being used by 3rd worlders, with the assumption being that the New Soviet Man would get more out of a Soviet MBT. I don't disagree entirely. I commented that one of the design flaws of Soviet MBT was crew protection and crew comfort.
Biometrics, if you will.
Anyway, Several people here think that Soviet MBT's are the greates thing since sliced bread. I ask them if they are so good, why are the kill ratios against Soviet tanks so lopsided?
The answers I got were the monkey model, which is pure propaganda, and crew training. On Marks' question about the US having T-72's in Desert Storm and the Iraqi's having M1's. I would guess that the M1's would have won. Despite the better training of the US crews. Hence the crack about national origins having no effect on frontal armor. Nothing to do with the game here.
I think there is quite a bit of communications breakdown taking place. Most of it seems to be my fault.
So I am no longer contributing to this thread. I have strong opinions and it doesn't upset me to argue with others that have equally strong opinions. I do have 248 slots available if anyone is interested. We can put it to the WinMBT test.

[Marek_Tucan]

Just few notes re "why did the Arabs buy them". I have already explained the term "Monkey mode" and why did I use it (ironically). However few points to consider:
-What Western tanks were being available to Iraq, Syria et al that were better than T-72? There were M60 variants, maybe some Chieftains, Centurions, Vickers tanks, AMX-30 or OF-40 (forget Leo-1s, German arms export policies would prevent it). Which od these tanks, in its basic variant, is better armed, armored and mobile than even the original T-72 Ural? I can think of only one of them as better protected and that one was by far the most expensive.
What guns were available to them? The longrod APFSDS rounds were in their beginning in the West, mostly secret, and all they'd be able to procure would be 105mm and 120mm HEAT, HESH or older APDS. Suddenly the APFSDS of Soviet 125mm gun starts looking like a killer in comparison, even if it is all the USSR would allow for export, IE BM-12, 15 and 17 (and no, WarPac allies didn't get better - BM-15 for us back then). However USSR itself, in the period when it sold T-72 and T-72A derivatives, was already producing T-80A (ie T-80B hull mounted with T-80U turret without ERA) and T-72B (both of which, btw seem to be better protected than M1 variants before HA version).
So your choice on purchase isn't "T-72 vs Abrams", but "T-72M or M1 vs M60A1" and not "M829A1 vs BM-42" but "BM-15 vs. M392". Suddenly, more frontal protection and more potent ammo at a good price seem to look like a good deal, won't you agree? The T-72 was the best they could have realistically gotten and, if properly employed, might have posed a serious problem to the Coalition forces, esp. those with AYMX-30 or no armor. Luckily, they were not properly employed, but try a ground warfare at that time against say Finns or Yugoslavia and you'll end up with plenty of problems.

EDIT: Few figures:
M60A1: Glacis some 110-143 mm at 55 degrees, Front Turret cast shape offering some 300mm RHA. 53 tons and some 10.6 kW per ton. 105mm M68 gun. Huge.
AMX-30: glacis 80@60, turret cast, ca. 160/200mm RHA. 36 tons and 14.9 kW/ton. 105mm gun.
Centurion Mk13: glacis 120/60, front turret ca. 220-250mm. 52 tons, 9.4 kW/ton. 105mm L7.
Chieftain Mk5: glacis 120@72, front turret ca. 380mm. 55 tons, 10.2 kW/ton. 120mm L11 gun.
Vickers Mk3: glacis ca. 80@55, front turret ca 120-150mm. 40 tons, 13.5 kW/ton. 105mm L7 gun.
OF-40: glacis 70@60, turret ca. 300mm RHA. 46 tons, 13.5 kW/ton. 105mm L7 gun.
T-72: glacis composite, ca. 300mm KE/400 CE, turret cast, 380-400mm RHA. 41 tons, 14kW/ton. 125mm gun.
T-72M1: glacis composite, ca. 400 vs KE, 500 vs CE, turret composite, similar values. 43 tons, 13.5 kW/ton. 125mm gun.

And ammo?
105mm L64 (UK, 1978): 310mm @ 2000m
105mm M735 (US, 1976): 300mm @ 2000m
105mm DM-23 (DEU, 1978): 310 @ 2000
105mm OFL105G1 (FRA, 1981): 300-350 @ 2000
125mm BM-12 (USSR, 1968): 315 @ 2000
125mm BM-15 (USSR, 1968): 340 @ 2000
125mm BM-17 (USSR, all steel, 1970): 330 @ 2000

So which one looks better?

[Imp]

C of Red I was not going to post anymore but you are missing the whole point. I am not saying Soviet tanks are ubber tanks & putting it to the test in MBT the M1 will win unless ther is a huge disparity in the players.
There was a huge enough disparity in the combatants & as Marek points out this tends to be the case more often than not & is what I have been saying throughout.
You seem totaly unable to grasp a big enough diffrence effects the outcome & brain over brawn applies to war to.
I dont think there has been a war since WW1 when both sides were matched both on equipment or skill. The US had its biggest problems after all in Vietnam not because they had good equipment but because of the tactics used, a "proper war" & it would have been over in weeks.
Quite simply put it would be a hard slog but in MBT you would beat a rookie who had vastly superior equipment.
The other point I raised is you cant just take a cursory look at info you have to dig to get anything like the whole picture which is what bought me into this as you are ignoring lots of factors in my view.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

So I am no longer contributing to this thread. I have strong opinions and it doesn't upset me to argue with others that have equally strong opinions. I do have 248 slots available if anyone is interested. We can put it to the WinMBT test.

There is no doubt there were versions of the T-72 that were built to an older and / or lower standard and sold as export and those for the most part are the ones that have made the news ( those and the obligatory shots of burning T-55's from those two wars but what does that prove ?.. that a tank designed just after WW2 has next to zero chance against the best tanks the west fields? Duh.) However, if you steadfastly refuse to believe that then there is little point in anyone offering any counterpoint information because all you'll do is dismiss it as propaganda or the claim the info comes from a "socialist organization " and the "argument" goes round and round and round then it's just as well you are no longer contributing to this thread because you simply are NOT contributing anything worthwhile besides personal opinion and alternate propaganda. As for putting it " to the WinMBT test " I have no doubt that if you take Iraqi and Russian T-72's with the same armour and armament and put them up against the best the US has to offer you'll get similar results to the Gulf War but what you seem to expect is that every battle between Western forces and Russian tanks should be a turkey shoot based on what has happened when "western" forces fought Arabs which is totally absurd IMHO.

A top of the line T-90A is NOT the same thing as an Iraqi T-72 any more than a M1 Abrams with the 105 gun is the same thing as a M1A2 SEP


Don

[KraMax]

It absolutely agree with Marek.
Battles are won by people, instead of tanks.

In our game, always it is possible to arrange small civil war (for example USA vs USA) and then at whom tactics will be better will win.

"A victory not at that at whom force, and at that at whom the truth!"

[Imp]

I think this post is dead but just found this though not verified showing as refered to in this thread the monkey tank does indeed exist, even to Western equipment

"There were built about 4 796 M1A1 "Abrams" main battle tanks for US Army and 221 for US Marines. In November 1998 there was made an agreement organizing in Egypt cooperation assemblage and serial production of 555 M1A1 main battle tanks for Egypt Armed Forces. The only Egypt main battle tank's difference was usage of multi-layered armor similar to M1 version. Egypt rejected additional used in M1A1 "Abrams" precipitant uranium increased armor. Tanks were built in Egypt plant No.200 since year 1992. 40% of parts and equipments are made in this African republic while the other part is imported from USA. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait and a number of tanks are used by Egypt.