the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

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.

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

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?

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.

A new tank is one where you start with a clean sheet of paper.
Like the T-72.

So say M60 was not new tank when it came?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Good luck with that! It takes more then propaganda to defeat a DU penetrator.

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

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.

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).

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

[Imp]

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.