You are really a very funny fellowship but unfortunately not well informed at all! You stated Soviet Army was a rubbish because of blah, blah, blah...
Try not to watch only CNN, BBC or similar "objective and independent" news sources. Also US Gulf War propaganda seems to sound in your opinions.
Well, let's point out some basic facts:
1. T-80BV tank was superior to M1A1 tank because of better armor, better APFSDS ammo and comparable FCS and mobility. Moreover note that III World War would be waged in Central Europe not on the Iraqi desert.
2. In late 1980s Soviet tank arsenal in Central Europe was composed almost solely with T-64B/BV, T-72AV/BV and T-80BV tanks equipped mainly with reactive armor. Of course there were many thousands of old T-54/55/62 tanks in Soviet inventory but they were placed in other theaters of military operations such as Balkans, Central Asia and Chinese border. Due to constant modernization program these old tanks were clearly superior to the M-48A5, M-60A1, T-34, T-59, T-69 junk in Turkish, Pakistani and Chinese use.
3. Warsaw Pact had about three-to-one numerical superiority over NATO in Central Europe in land arms and about two-to-one in air force. NATO lacked any strategic depth and significant number of in-place ammunition reserves. Also conventional precision weapons weren't accessible for NATO up to the end of Cold War. In fact NATO air forces arsenal in 1980s still consisted of Vietnam era weapons. Its northern border with GDR, where main Soviet thrust was expected, was guarded by second rank Belgian, Dutch, Danish and German Landwehr forces. NATO reinforcements in CONUS were stationed a few thousands kilometers from probable battlefield. It was poorly trained National Guard units, armed with outdated arms and without any fast mobilization potential. In contrary Soviet reinforcements from Western USSR (about 40 divisions) could arrive into Germany in a week time-frame.
4. You seems not to understand Soviet military strategy of that time. It was based on COMBINED ARMS DOCTRINE. It means lack of symmetry inter alia. The best example is that Soviet tanks and gunships weren't primary tool to fight NATO tanks. They had another jobs to do. Anti-tank missions were ceded to the Soviet tactical air forces and MLRS using cluster anti-tank bombs and rockets to destroy western tanks columns and concentration areas. The main opponents of Soviet tanks were NATO ATGMs. That is why almost every Soviet tank was equipped with barrel launched ATGM designed especially to destroy NATO ATGM strongholds. Note that AT-8/10/11 missiles were faster than wire guided NATO anti-tank HOT/TOW/Milan ones. Besides Soviets had its artillery on the brain so that was their main tool to destroy discovered locations of NATO antitank defenses with high intensity barrage fires.
Remark: Soviet arty could fire FIVE TIMES MORE ammo tonnage than NATO arty in the same time period!
5. As for supposedly inadequate training of Soviet troops: First, Soviet society was far more militarized that any Western one. It means beginning of constant military training in the first class of high school, long before call up into Soviet Army. Second, in those days Soviets had plenty of resources for military manoeuvres at all tactical and operational levels in contrary to present Russian Army. Look at "WEST '81" military exercise for example. Third, as we know only US Army and British Army were professional armies in the 1980s. The rest of NATO armies were conscript armies exactly like USSR army was.
I think I put a bit all above questions across to you.
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
) - About half the cost of normal shells, but I only bought a few boxes. 2 or 3 misfires out of maybe 4 boxes, the brass started to rust/discolour after a couple of outings, and the fouling in the barrel was bad (no plastic shot cup).
Hybrid Mode
