Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

For what its worth my 2 cents take with a pinch of salt.
Some valid points but its still mainly speculation.
Yes a turret without a commander is at a big disadvantage but thats not the case now though if the electronics are up to the job now is the question. Do Russian MBTs have hunter/ killer tech (commander selects next target while gunner deals with first) Is there targeting TI as good or better? On the modern battlefield he who sees the other first wins aka Iraq. Where if I remember they were sub standard tanks & badly maintained. Though of course the Russian military went to pieces for a good while & maintanence suffered there.
Chechnya several reports the tanks did not have there reactive armour fitted which makes a huge diffrence. Other factors to but not going into & then you have to figure whos actually got it right.
I can remember reading the Rheinmetall tests that lead to designed the present gun, conducted against tanks fitted with Soviet ERA they found it was quite capable of defeating both HEAT & kinetic rounds. Its effectiveness against kinetic rounds surprised them hence we need a gun with a lot more grunt.
Simple things like estimates of armours effectivness need carefull analysis because people use diffrent criteria. Fired at obliqly or straight projectile passes through or marks a metal plate behind etc.
The upshot is Russian frontline tanks may not be as bad as you think though perhaps the majority could be worse as only get low level upgrades. With a bit of luck we will never find out.
Then you could throw in the situation you create in MBT war has broken out its Russia vs USA & its gone on for a few days. Russian tanks are now quite good as USA uses a dumbed down version of the Rheinmetall gun but makes the penetration up with depleted uranium rounds. Oh weve used all the rounds can we have a cease fire while we build some more nuclear powerstations & replenish our stocks please.
Like I said pure speculation & if you think its wrong you can adjust it.
On T-90S & dont know why I remember this but have seen ratings varying from about 550-1300. The 1300 applying to approx 50% of the surface as thats the part covered by second generation kontact 5 (forget the name) 550 was the area to ether side of the gun as mounts detection gear so no reactive armour. And yes I would say the relience on ERA means the tank has more vulnerable spots. It also means its a lot lighter & can use bridges possibly go places (I know ground pressure) Western tanks cant.

The simple way to look at in my view is with the advent of the T-72 & its derivatives Western tanks entered an era of rapid upgrades & refinments compared to the past. The Abrams for example got its upgrades because the experts thought it needed them to survive not just because there was some cash in the kity.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

First only partly true - it was a renamed and significantly upgraded T-72B. You know, the variant that by fairly simple solution brought "monkey model " (compared to T-64 and 80) to par.

T-90S and T-90A are already different beasties, though. Does "new turret" ring a bell?

First: In what? Firing lots of HE? Sure, lower pressure does wonders for barrel life so the T-72 is in this aspect worse than T-62. Resisting damage? I very much doubt so.
Second: AFAIK T-80 showed to be pretty survivable, and after all T-72 as well, once the Russian commanders learned how not to fall into massive ambushes of state-of-the-art RPGs.


Mebbe, just mebbe the fact that US tankers in Iraq knew that the best the Iraqi's have is RPG-7 with PG-7M projectiles (the more modern ones are very scarce and began to appear later on), whereas Chechens got newer stuff? Would they be so eager to make thunder runs if they knew that PG-7L was widespread in the streets of Baghdad?
How many Thunder Runs were made by Israelis in Lebanon and Gaza? I suppose you take that the Israelis also knew they were dead when they climbed into Merkavas and so they pussyfooted with all that slow advance and infantry support stuff? Or mebbe just the Iraqis were so lame and so weakly armed as to allow for Thunder Runs?
Also notice there were no thunder Runs in Fallujah. Why was that? Did the US tankers learn about their coffins? Don't think so.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Btw re. diesel behind glacis, all western tanks have either fuel tanks, ammo or both behind the glacis. Except maybe Merkava, which has the fuel all around the crew ;)

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Re Fuel
Do not take this as correct but sure I read somewhere its done on purpose. It is quite good at taking the energy out of a kinetic round. Diesel is not very volatile though I would think a HEAT hit would ignite it as hotter than the sun. The thing is though I suppose it either ignites the diesel or sprays the crew compartment.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

As I said you have to read quite a bit & pick the bones out of it rather than just looking at end results.
If anything was wrong in Chechnya I would say it was tactics & underestimation of the enemy, high command/political meddling if you will.
Hardly something you could acuse the West of in its "little forays" into Iraq, overkill comes to mind trying to do it on a budget never entered into it the cost of air ordanance alone used is stagering.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I don't think that is correct. The M1 came after my time, but IIRC, the fuel tank is amidships, between the turet backet and the engine compartment. Co-formal, I think, so the turret basket sort of sits in it. I'm looking for a picture or line drawing that shows the gas cap.
If there is one thing the Soviet Union was the undisputed champion at, it was propaganda. The 'Monkey' model export weapons is a classic example of that. Do you really think that some Arabs who grew up hageling with his mother over a teat is going to buy a monkey model? Or are you suggesting that the Arab in question didn't know it was a monkey model? Or maybe the Salesman from Britain or France or Germany, looking to sell some of their tanks would forget to mention that the Arab was getting the monkey model and if they wanted the real thing, buy from me? No wonder capitalism never took hold in Russia.
As far as being a new tank because it has a new turret, I beg to differ. The Germans put several new turrets of various makes of their Leo. Changed the engine, gun, electronics, almost everything over the decades. They aren't doing any propaganda about it being a "new" tank.
A new tank is one where you start with a clean sheet of paper.
Like the T-72. The Soviets would change the Hull, Engine, Turret and gun, then restart the cycle over. That is why I say they were trying to design the perfect WW2 ( Great Patriotic War) tank, since it was the T-34 that was the 'clean sheet' design that started that process.
And while everybody raves about the T-34, the Germans had a better then 20 to 1 kill ratio over it with Mk IV's, which the experts claim was an inferior tank. So much for experts.

My final point is that while Soviet/Russian tanks look good on papaer and make the experts drool, when the shooting starts, they explode and burn. What exactly will make the T-90 (T-72 Mk2/b) different? Unproven defense systems that have never been tried in combat?
Good luck with that! It takes more then propaganda to defeat a DU penetrator.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ons/m829a1.htm

The USA isn't going to fight Russia in a conventional war.
I seriously doubt that America will honor it's NATO commitments, since NATO didn't honor theirs in 2001 (except for Britain).
So when Putin decides to take Europe away from the Muslims, America will yawn and go back to rooting against the Yankees.
So the Russians will be fighting the Krauts, again. And Russian tanks will be burning, again. So the Russian propaganda department will rename the next modification of the T-72, again and peddle it as a new tank, again. None of this will work any better then it did last time, again.
How do you say it in Russin?
поражено в колейности
"Stuck in a rut"

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Sounds like I am fighting you but would just like to point out from what I have read & what most guys in charge of Panzer Div seem to say regarding success vs T-34 or indeed any Soviet Armour.
Normaly hugely outnumbered 5:1 was considered an everday thing & the Soviet problem was not so much the eqipment as a lack of command structure & rigidity in carrying out orders.
The Soviets would have a plan & pretty much stick to it reacting poorly if at all to opportunities. Very few people knew what the plan was so they just followed the leader & had little training.
The Germans on the other hand everyone knew the objectives platoon leaders were told the overall picture & their objectives & in the better formations were encouraged to use their initative to achieve them.
This meant for a good Percentage of German Commanders after a short while on the German front they could predict what the Russians would do with high accuracy & react accordingly. So at 5:1 odds there was no doubt in there mind they would win with acceptable losses.
It was command structure or lack of that was the deciding factor & if take early Russian or most French tanks they had little choice with no radios. Follow your leader & do not lose sight of him while he is exposed out of his turret waving flags.
Yes I am sure the 2 man turret played a part as did lack of training. At least the factory workers that jumped straight in the T-34s as they had come off the line at Stalingrad had seen & possibly driven a vehicle before. But it bought them time & they won in the end as much due to Hitler overrulling the military & so negating its advantage.

The Germans had it there way till another army with good C&C, I think its fair to say British tanks were generally a bit lack lustre yet they still managed good kill ratios versus the Germans. nothing to do with the equipment you said it yourself a weapon is only as good as the men maning it.

So the problem in the game if you want to call it that is not the modeling of equipment but the fact you play Russia with same tactical aplomb that you do its opponent.
Letting Russia be played by the AI might actually make the game more realistic certainly in WW2.

Sorry mentioned France because in many ways there tanks were better yet they failed miserably perhaps as I say through this due to C&C leading to them being out thought

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

That's one tank. Another is right behind the glacis. The 80mm at 72 degrees sheet of metal. And it's there intentionally.

That's why I put it in "". The so-called "Monkey models" were not any downgraded equipment, just older equipment - the same way as the US didn't sell M1A1 to anyone in 1988, just selling off M60s. Bear in mind the original idea behind T72 was to have a more potent follow-on to T-55 and 62, ie inexpensive medium tank with fairly good gun. As the problems with 64 and esp. with 80 showed up, it was decided that the T-72 will be brought up from the Cannon Fodder category to MBT category - to do that, at first improved version of the "old" model came - T-72A and its derivatives (T-72M and M1 - export variants, T-72M keeping old plain steel turret, T-72M1 using different composite than A) and in 1980s T-72B, which meant a great leap for T-72 series. So the older variants were indeed much less capable than T-72B.
As for why Arabs bought them, they looked kewl, were cheap so there could be masses of 'em on parades and finally countries that bought them were not all that rich and were under Soviet influence. Still, for example India bought them and builds them.

So say M60 was not new tank when it came?


Actually, T-34 was a result of evolution of BT series. Hardly "Clean sheet" design, it just got bigger and bigger as new requirements came. And the result wasn't all that good either, T-34 was more of temporary sollution till much better T-43 comes - though the war disrupted the plans.

I would like to see the source of that claim. Aren't you confusing it with kill ratios from the beginning of Eastern front, achieved against masses of totally incompetently led BTs and T-26s with few off T-34 and KVs?

Actually ERA was proven in combat - in Chechnya (where it served well once the Russians started to use it), in Georgia... Why the heck did the US switch to it in the TUSK Abrams upgrade if it is such an unproven defense system? Sure, ERA isn't panacea, but it is quite significant.
As for exploding and burning, Abrams does it as well. Merkavas too. Depends on the hit location and so on. And sudden catastrophic explosions are pretty rare - most of the famous "turret popping" happened when tanks stayed burning for a prolonged time, not right after hit. Or it happened after multiple hits.
And may I point to the fact Western tanks are hardly immune to ammo explosions? Just have a look at that unfortunate Chally 2 friendly fire incident.

Sweet, so propaganda of M829 manufacturer is somehow better than propaganda of T-72 manufacturer? The M829 proved itself... Against export models of T-72, and many of them locally produced in Iraq with all consequences for quality. Many of those did not even have the basic measure T-72s were given against 105mm M111 round, ie 17mm additional steel plate on the glacis. And with crew doing pretty wild stuff with them (if I can extrapolate from reports of our T-72 instructors teaching tankers of the New Iraqi Army) - much of it similar to mistakes US tankers did when entering the WW2, ie keeping axcessive amounts of various combustible materials in the fighting compartment, around the ammo, neglecting maintenance (incl. firefighting equipment) and so on. Compared to this, even a T-72M4CZ or Polish PT-91, with skilled crew, good FCS and optics and heavy ERA, is much tougher nut to crack, let alone T-72B variants with their significantly stronger armor, let alone T-90 which got again stronger by using Ti instead of Al in its armor arrays.
You seem to operate under illusion I am claiming that Russian tanks are über alles - no, they suffer from many design decisions that aren't (by my opinion) all that well thought out, but they ain't POS you claim them to be. They are quite robust, reliable design with a big upgrade potential and decent protection, given your commander is not a dumb moron ordering your Bn to take tanks without support to city fighting against a determined and well-equipped enemy. But then in Grozny situation Abrams or Leo 2s would not make any difference other than (contrary to Russian tanks)) lacking a decent HE shell.

Wonder how did all the NATO troops find themselves in A-stan. Wonder how come our soldiers were KIA and WIA there and how come our Spec Forces hunted the Taleban through the mountains, calling in air strikes and generally earning praise from the US commanders, when I learn now from you we do not honor our NATO commitment. And it is especially sweet coming from you with your shouts about propaganda. Though I do not know whose propaganda are you consuming as, fortunately, US officials seem to notice even 10million countries and their contributions.


Oh and btw when the Russians will be taking Europe from Muslims, you will be already learning how to use eating sticks :p

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Now boys play nice, the truth is all tanks have there design faults its the nature of the beast. And all modern MBT are unproven including the likes of the M1 to say otherwise is delusional.
Taking a man of the street & pitting him against a heavy weight boxer does not prove anything only when he faces the opponent he trained for or the tank was designed to take on has that happened.
Tank design is a slow progresion with occasional leaps the first big one possibly being the Germans realising armoured warfare was on the cards & designing the Tiger.
The next probably the T-34 which became the basis for tank design spawning for instance the Panther. Targeting computers came along Chobham Armour improved detection & the USA finaly managed to produce a half decent tank as the M1 was born, etc etc etc.
Of course it to was found to be almost immediatly redundant as the West managed to miss the birth of the T-72 so its main gun was a travesty & the drawing board came out again.

It is only when you get a sudden leap that you get a tank that rules the battlefield, but even the Tiger only got a few years grace. If you are capable of killing the other guy it comes down to crew & training & the standard of your equipment makes that easier or harder. With recent advances but the same holds throughout history staying on top of the game is important. If the tanks a couple of years old & someone has made an advance it may as well be 20 years old from an effectivness point of view.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

So say M60 was not new tank when it came?
No Mark, the M-60 was an upgrade of the M-48, which was an upgrade of the M-47, which was an upgrade of the T-26 (M-26 Patton) which was a clean sheet design and the MBT the US should have gone to war in Europe with.
Mark, I'm not meaning to get you upset, since one day we might be opponents. I'm just saying that the T-90 is over rated in game terms. Armor needs to be cut back to 80 87 frontal.
I understand it isn't for the same reason the US JDAM isn't accurately represented in the game. Playability.
That is OK with me, since I like playing the game and if it reflected reality, the Russians would have no chance against the US Army, just like in the real world. In the real world, the battle will end with burning Russian tanks everywhere, just like has happened for the last 50 plus years.
The Soviets had an erroneous design philosophy for tanks, which the Russians have inherited. As evidence to support my statement I point to generations of Soviet designed tanks that look good on paper and in parades but perform poorly on the battlefield.
You can make excuses until the cows come home, but when you are done, the picture of those tanks burning will counter your excuses.
Mark, Afghanistan is a side show. What happens there makes no difference anywhere else in the world. Maybe not even in Afghanistan. It was only incompetence on the part of the Clinton Adminstration that allows the WTC attack to go home. Remember the CIA knew about the WTC attack in time to stop it, they were prevented by Law from doing so. Clinton had at least two opportunities to put and end to Osama. The Emir of Sudan has Osama in cuffs at the airport waiting for the call from the Clinton administration to hand him over to a CIA agent waiting to put him on a plane and fly him back to the states. Call never came. A CIA sniper had his cross hairs on Osama, waiting for the order to put him down. The call never came.
Iraq, on the other hand , is a key element in defeating Islamic terrorism, or Radical Islam, if you prefer. The USA WAS attacked. Igf you don'tthink so, I believe Youtube has the video. NATO requires that America's allies aid us when we are attacked.
Nothing in the treaty about picking and choosing which attack counts. Nothing about having a veto over our strategy for counterattack, of even the fact of a counterattack. Italy and Spain tried, England was great. Germany failed the test. Poland and the New Europe gave all the help they could. The Low Countries didn't come thru.
Those are facts. You may not like them, but that is another issue, one that doesn't matter at this point in time.

Imp, I'm just chatting. I am to old to be serious about any of this, so if it bothers you, I'll leave it alone. I am correct. Russia needs to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and design a MBT that is worthy.
Re-paintintg the ГАЗ-М20 Победа; Победа and putting a new emblem on it won't make it a Mercedes.