what time period is the most even for US vs USSR?

[hoplitis]

Originally Posted by Wdll

...
Russia was not under threat by the Georgians. I am talking about a major war (for them).

Actually I was thinking more about Chechnya then Georgia.
For a major war you must be prepared beforehand.
If you see the Russian goverment "buying" more of its weapons that's a great indicator that things are becoming more "interesting" (at least on a diplomacy level).

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by runequester

Within the realms of steel panthers, what time frame do you find makes the game the most equal for American vs Soviet?

(and what time frames do you find fun even if they are unequal )

1960 through 1975 or so is probably the most interesting period.

It might be worth playing a set of 10-battle generated campaigns at 5 year intervals to see how it ping-pongs between the 2 sides.

1960 - USA has 90mm guns with an anaemic HEAT round versus T55s, no real helo gunships, has to rely a lot on the 106 RCL jeep and 90mm RCL in the rifle platoons. USSR has usable ATGM on BRDM chassis. No RPG-7 yet.
(Slight advantage to USSR if they blitz with the T55s and avoid any NATO members equipped with centurions)

1965 - USA has the M60s and the M48 with a useful HEAT round (which should really be more common than any M60s fielded as yet). 106 RCL jeep still important. No TOWs yet!. USSR has T62, but no T64 as yet. No BMP, ZSU-23-4 Shilka is just arriving (and is rather good at this point!). RPG-7. Grad. BTR-60PB, which can really annoy M113s with its 14.5 KPV.
(Pretty even technologically, rest of NATO have 105mm tanks, Leo 1, AMX-30, Chieftain about to deploy)

1970 USA has access to dragon, Sheridans, M150 TOW, Redeye MANPADS, M163 Vulcan, M60A1 would be the mainstream tank in Germany. Cobra gunships. USSR has added the T64, BMP-1, Sagger teams, Strela MANPADS, URAGAN bomblet MLRS.
(Pretty even, rest of NATO similar, +Chieftain in service)

1975 USA has TOW cobras, the M60A2 with shillelagh (not really an advantage! ). For the USSR, the T-72 has arrived on the scene in useful numbers to add to the T64s...
(Rest of NATO as per 1970. Milan prevalent. Very slight advantage to the USSR?)

1980+ - Along cone the Chobham tanks, MLRS etc. Thermal sights. Advantage swings to NATO and stays there till the USSR implodes.

Andy

[Imp]

Agree with Andys comment a campaign works well & can continue a bit further as first Abrams is not that effective suffering from a common problem you will notice with the US.
If talking tanks US generaly has better Fire Control but a pea shooter for a gun so cant capitalise much of the time. One sides praying for a hit the other for it to penetrate & the US forgot to install Giros so attacking can be a problem. Good fun as a campaign as it swings back & forth.
If you keep going unless patch has changed you reach a point where both sides have trouble destroying the others tanks as armour outraces firepower for a while.

[PlasmaKrab]

Originally Posted by Imp

Agree with Andys comment a campaign works well & can continue a bit further as first Abrams is not that effective suffering from a common problem you will notice with the US.
If talking tanks US generaly has better Fire Control but a pea shooter for a gun so cant capitalise much of the time. One sides praying for a hit the other for it to penetrate & the US forgot to install Giros so attacking can be a problem. Good fun as a campaign as it swings back & forth.
If you keep going unless patch has changed you reach a point where both sides have trouble destroying the others tanks as armour outraces firepower for a while.

True, that's why I find more interest in playing against Soviet opponents around the late-70s-early-80s. Take e.g. 1983, you have the first Abramses in Germany (supported by lots of TI ATGMs), sporting measly 105mm guns which severely degrade the spotting advantage against new-model T-64s and the early T-80s. What good is spotting your target 3km away when your rounds bounce off until they are 1.5km closer?
The opposing T-64/80 have the opposite problem at that time with excessive firepower and lower-grade FC and vision.
Of course this ends tarting 1986 with the M1A1, which can make short work of any opposing armor.
This is only for tanks, but I have found the supporting elements to be more or less matched, give or take a few years.

But if you want an equal game, I agree that you should look at the early 60s or earlier still.

[hoplitis]

I guess that the US "lag" in upgrading "tactical" battlefield weapons/platforms was a result of shifting its attention to "strategic" assets in the post WW2-50s era. No time or funds to improve your armor/antiarmor assets when you've decided that an increased variety and number on nuclear weapons and delivery systems will stabilize or even tip the "balance" to your favor even without actually needing to "press the button". Air-carriers also received attention (succeeding in entering the jet era), strategic submarines, fast interceptors, ballistic missiles etc. The US was "pressing" on the strategic level not the operational/tactical one.

[Imp]

It might just have been stalled atempts to get something off the ground designing tanks was never a US strong suite & copying the likes of the Brit range or at least taking the gun was not a done thing.
As said air arm seems to live by own rules but I think I am correct US army equipment design had to be simple from a manafacturing point of view. Even if you take someone elses gun you have to simplify it then figure out how to make the ammo make up the shortfall for instance. The thing is Russia probably did this to but progressed .
The M1 after all owes being born partly due to the fact Brits invented Chobham shortly after replacing there MBTs so the US was gifted some of the tech that allowed them to be battlefield dominators for the first time.
As I understand it the problem with US guns was generally the arty arm got involved & specified silly lifes for it, perhaps thinking of WW2 & anti infantry role.

[Suhiir]

I also agree wholeheartedly with Don's comments on the 1960 thru 1980ish period. The new weapons systems introduced by both sides during this period make for very interesting battles, you really need to take advantage of whatever advantage the side you're playing has.

I like the 1970-1975ish period best myself. IF you create a Player VS AI campaign and equip yourself with all top-of-the-line weapons systems the AI will tend to use a few top-end systems and large number of 2nd-line ones making for interesting battles as you have to deal with both quality and quantity in most battles.