the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[Imp]

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.

Me to & it might bother me if I thought you were making comments with a You Tube mentality of my army is the best.
Just pointing out where people could disagree so presenting both sides of the coin on which.

You had a go T-80 T-90 are just renamed upgraded T-72s. Now you say M60 is what exactly. Renamed following a similar convention to the Russian upgrade.
Little changes we stick a number or letter on the end big ones we rebadge it.

Also I would like to say the Russians pulled off the biggest propaganda coo of all time at the end of the cold war. If I remember the tanks that are only good in parades caused an US General to remark "Glad they were on our side"
So a large part of the USAs paranoia over the cold war was caused by a bunch of rubbish tanks parading through Berlin.
Thats value for money.
Anyway will stop now as getting boring but will say as the game models ERA the combination of armour rating & ERA might be slightly high, not really looked.
Certainly the armour ratings are possibly slightly high but without testing the game model of ERA its hard to say. Of course Soviet composite armour could be rubbish to but it might also be quite good.
But as said I have seen figures as high as 1300 across approx 50% of front & the link you gave was some guy who puts out his estimate for game use not from a military source that studies & makes estimates on enemy equipment. On that point some countries do not seem very good at it best to trust what the Europeans say

[Imp]

& the link you gave was some guy who puts out his estimate for game use not from a military source that studies & makes estimates on enemy equipment.

Appologies on that statement if wrong just occured to me I might have confussed with another post elsewhere.
also it just occured to me against Western MBT armour rating does not matter if a bit out as they will defeat it unless extreme range or it triggers an ERA packet which may save it so seems okay to me as thats what I would expect to happen.

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

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.

But the US marketed it as new. And T-26 was just an evolution of an M4 and M6 hybrid. After all the turret used on T-26 was based on work done on T-23 turret (that went to M4(76) series). So hardly a "Clean sheet" design, the same way say Challenger 2 is based on 1 which is based on export Chieftain which is based on Centurion which is based on British Cruiser tanks... Yet again both Centurion, Chieftain and Chally 1 and 2 were being announced as new tanks.

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.

Yep, most players would object if the JDAM and most other PGM could be relied to hit the target hex regardless of what's in it, if it meant it would blow up a truck shile the tanks next doors will suffer only minor headache.
As for T-90, agree and not. The figure used in the game is based on armor and ERA ratings combined, while the ERA coverage is pretty low. That is one way of putting it, as the game isn't that detailed in the area of effects of heavy ERA.
The second way, the way I chose for my OOBs (which I will hopefully release soon - as soon as I entangle the great T-54-55 variants headache) is to use "armor" only for actual "hard" armor and raise the ERA coverage, so my T-90 has front hull just a little better than T-72B (OTOH T-72B is significantly better vs. KE than in the original OOB) and I have front hull of 62 (both KE and CE) and front turret of 71 and 91 (KE, CE) - based on the approximation of its BDD-like structure. Either way can do justice to real values just in a limited way.

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.

Where in the real world did the US and Soviet forces directly clash?

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.

I can supply you with pictures of burning Mag'achs in Sinai, or of burning M47s on Indo-Pakistani border. I can supply you with pics of burning Abrams, after being hit by a puny late 1948s SPG-82. What does it prove? And in 1991, when did the "burning T-72s" mostly occur, a large portion of Iraqi tanks was destroyed ahile being abandoned, either by gunfire or by traditional means, IE demolition charges, the same way as so many Georgian tanks got burned last summer. Few fell in actual combat, most were demolished either by Georgians themselves or by Russians when after the Georgian collapse Russian troops more or less freely roamed many Georgian bases.
Note the Israeli experience. After 1967 and 1973, they accepted captured tanks en masse to service. Given their aim of minimising crew casaulties, do you think that these tanks were really so much of a deathtrap?
Was Leopard 1 a deathtrap with its thin armor? Canucks using them in A-stan seem not to think so.

Frankly, your stance here reminds me very much the stance of Axis and Soviet fanboys re. Sherman tank. They use similar arguments: fields of burning tanks (Africa, Goodwood, usually in a situation where the tactics used would mean the Allies would lose the tanks even if they have had already M48s), "Tommy cooker" once and for all (though in fact as for example Dmitri Loza recollects, while Sherman caught fire more easily than T-34, if properly handled, it provided more time for evacuation and didn't blow up), "poor mobility" (though again Red Army vets with both M4 and T-34 combat experience - as opposed to just being told - do not say so and Germans in Italy complained that Sherman goes where their tanks cannot), "poor weaponry" (esp. ironic if it's being compared to T-34 where it was generally on par) etc. And what are those denigrations of M4 based on? On initial combat where green crews in early variants of poor quality (early M4A1 cast armor hardness was generally in the area of 50% - 75% of the planned value, and with numerous cracks and bubbles) faced experienced veterans of Panzerwaffe.

Just a final "tank" question for you: Do you think that had Iraq in 1991 M1's and M60's and the Coalition having T-72's, Iraq would win? I dare think the opposite. Same for Sinai, 1967, give IDF T-55's (hell, they would be glad enough to have them instead of having few M48 and Centurions and rest upgunned Shermans) and Egypt 105mm Centurions and M48s, Egypt would still get its backside handed to them.
Same for the Valley of Death on Golans in 1973'. Switch both side's equipment and watch as IDF tankers slaughter Centurions and Shermans while safely remaining in the dark thanks to T-55 night vision kit.
It's not as much the machine as the man inside. You may have M1A56 Superduperabrams but if you do not pay attention to such pesky details as setting up your sights properly, keeping the inside clean and uncluttered, setting up proper C3I structure or lubricating the engine, you are in deep trouble even if you encounter an IFV manned by at least semi-competent crew.

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.

Which attack do you mean? You mean Sptember 11? But Iraq had nothing to do with that (and despite attempts of persons with Bush Derangement Syndrome GWB never said so and did not justify action in Iraq as a response to Sept 11, just as a means to prevent possible future attacks), Afghan-based Osama's group did, that's also why A-stan is a NATO mission.
That is not to say Iraq did not deserve a good hard smacking for repeated violations of ceasefire agreement from 1991, but connecting Iraq with response to Sept 11th is a bit like connecting British invasion of Vichy Syria with Pearl Harbor.
Also if Iraq works as "draw the terrs out in the open", it was not intended so in the first place. You recall the apalling job of post-invasion planning made by the US, with blunders like immediately totally disbanding the army and the police? Needless to say that A-stan serves that purpose as well and moreover lets us watch closely a large unstable country with nukes. If the Talebs were nto killed in A-stan mountains, guess how many nmore will be available to try to topple the Paki govt, which, as corrupt and backstabbing as it is, is still better than an imam with nukes.
Needless to say, US gov knew all this well enough to not ask for NATO help in Iraq. It called for individual countrie's help (and you'll notice that my country, taxed enough as it was with A-stan and Kosovo, among others, also helped), but not for a NATO stamp because there simply was nothing to earn it.
But this is an off-topic sideshow so I recommend we drop the issue and you look up what is a NATO mission and what is not.

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by Imp

Certainly the armour ratings are possibly slightly high but without testing the game model of ERA its hard to say.

The ERA is a difficult beastie all by itself, as is the slat armor and standoff screens. Currently the game does ERA in a "digital" fashion, ie "Block 100%" or "Fail 100%", which is not entirely accurate re. modern HEAT and sabot rounds. The protection of ERA is usually given by RHA thickness its manufacturer says it presents, so it would suggest that the ERA is expected to degrade, not destroy the projectile - so say if you slap Kontakt-5 on a T-90 and fire BGM-71E TOW-2 at it, it might well be degraded enough that it will not penetrate. However do the same with Kontakt-5 on a BMP and the TOW will rip it apart, whereas with the "digital" model it would block the HEAT as well.
The same goes for other technologies. NERA armor used on LEo2A5, T-90 or T-55AM2 would work better against some projectiles, worse against others, of the same category. So any composite armor rating is a WAG even if we do know its composition (which, I believe, we do with T-72B and T-90 to a great degree of certainity).

[Imp]

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Love it

On your comments about ERA etc.
Tend to agree the game model is not correct but then its an add on they managed to squeeze into the code. If doing your own OOB I did think for a lightly armoured vehicle you could reduce the amount of ERA so there is less chance of a hit to represent it will still probably penetrate. So 50% coverage instead of giving an ERA of 5 give it 3.
This on reflection will not work either because now its not there to stop the RPG round that it could have degraded sufficently. You are going to have a bit of fun working out a compromise.
Also agree finding info on what Russian composite armour is made of & construction of has become a lot easier. Still does not realy help though as like its Western counterparts we dont realy no how good it is. Till someone releases data for first generation Chobham saying compared to rolled plate its XX% better vs KE & HEAT its a guess what XXmm of composite is actually worth. And then its a guess how good the improved stuff is
I have a feeling the new generation of composites is very very good against HEAT.

[Marek_Tucan]

Last news re. Western armor that appeared on Tank-Net seem to show that at least part of Abrams side turret armor is arranged by a similar principle to BDD/T-72B/T-90, i e multiple thin layers, of unknown composition, prolly metal with something in between. (EDIT: Based on a pic from iraq showing M1 with rear turret side outer layer blown off by IED)
There were suggestions that the entire Chobham, rep. the US version, is arranged in a similar fashion, ie no bulk ceramic with inserts, but lots of thin stuff, IOW that both sides reached similar arrangements for similar reasons. though of course that remains speculation until someone manages to dissect M1A2SEP in detail Or, for that matter, T-90A or Leo 2 or Chally 2. Anyway similar structures were also seen on damaged NERA modules from Merk IV from Lebanon.

EDIT: Re. ERA, the representation as it is in the game is "good enough", any attempt at more details will drown in a swamp of details... Just decided to look into remnants of ERA and their effect on armor, seems that Kontakt-5 and other newer ERA will have some influence, as their outer plate remains in place and the action is contained inside - IOW even after the ERA is fired, the 15mm standoff armor at some angle remains there and works a bit.

[Imp]

Cheers I might take a look at Abams had not seen that & agree the scale we are playing have been happy with ERA model in use.

[c_of_red]

"Which attack do you mean? You mean Sptember 11? But Iraq had nothing to do with that (and despite attempts of persons with Bush Derangement Syndrome GWB never said so and did not justify action in Iraq as a response to Sept 11, just as a means to prevent possible future attacks), Afghan-based Osama's group did, that's also why A-stan is a NATO mission."

You might be correct that Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC attack ( jury is still out, there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that Saddam may have unwittingly provided training, papers and funding for the mission but there is no smoking gun and if there ever was it has been buried too deep to find or been destroyed), but Bush II was correct about the WTC attack being part of a larger picture.
Between 1980 and 2000, the Dept of State listed over 4700 attacks on US property or persons by Islamic affiliated groups.
So to just go after Al Qaeda would be like England declaring war on the 9th Panzer division. 9th Panzer was PART of the German Army. Al Qaeda is PART of the terrorists that have been waging war on the USA for the last 40 years or so. Since 1979 when the Embassy in Tehran was captured.
What makes it difficult for the naive to comprehend is that terrorist groups do not work directly for nations or states. Hezz-bo-Allah (Arm of God, roughly translated) works for whoever wants to pay them to kill members of the Dar al-Harb (House of War, which is anyone and everyone not a Muslim). While Hezzbollah are enemies of Al Qaeda, they will both work together to kill Infidels. Sort of like Protestants and Catholics taking a break from killing each other to kill Muslims or 7th day Adventists.
So to say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism is wrong and evidence of a total misunderstanding of the problem. To say that the current WoT ( War on Terror, a really bad choice for names by Bush II) is a response to the WTC attack is just as wrong. The WTC attack was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
The real issue and the reason why the Left in America and the Euros of both sides were against Iraq is it brought home the fact that we ARE at war.
Clinton and the Euros want to treat terrorism as a crime. It isn't, it's war, but wars are nasty and require sacrifice while a crime is something you can leave to the police, who like doing that stuff. So the average citizen can go back to watching a football game and not be bothered.
At least until guys with rags around their head and automatic weapons kick in his door and ask him to quote Suran 9.18 or be put in jail. He then tells them to leave or he'll call the police. They tell him they ARE the police and if he gives them any more trouble, jail is out and he'll get the old one in the gut two in head roadside execution treatment.

We wandered waaaaay OT here and I apologize for my part in that.
I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

[DRG]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

I'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

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

Fraid you are the only one who suggests such a thing, for neither me nor anyone else made such a statement. After all the birthplace of the tank crew is also of no effect - I bet large part of IDF tankers in all wars was born in Russia or even in Arab countries.
However what you fail to grasp is that a skilled crew might utilise their tank so well that thinner armor does maybe bother them, but does not doom them to your apocalyptic images of fields of burning wrecks. You want an example? What about the scores of T-34 vs PzKpfw IV? The latter tank got thinner armor and worse mobility.
You also can take a non-tank matter of say the Winter War. Finnish army, desperately outnumbered in manpower, airpower and artillery, managed to deal good enough blows to the Soviets that the plan to get a puppet govt to Helsinki failed.
What about IDF AMX-13s and M50 Shermans vs. T-55 and IS-3? Not only the Israeli tanks got significantly thinner armor (nearing paper-thin on AMX), not only AMX was really weird vehicle not all that suitable for a maneuver battle, but the 75mm French gun was too weak to penetrate T-55 from the front and IS-3 turret from all aspects... Yet the IDF won. Why is that? Was it because they grew extra two feet of armor on their tanks and used APFSDSDU? Or was it because IDF doctrine led the crews to aggressive maneuvering and initiative, as opposed to rigid Arab units led by not too brilliant officers and with bad overall knowledge about their equipment (search for an article "Why Arabs lose wars").
Or take the battle of Khafji: the only Coalition tanks fighting there were AMX-30, with guns rougly comparable with at most the 115mm of T-62s encountered and armor weaker than T-55. By your "weak armor" theory the USMC was even more pathetic as the heaviest vehicle used there was LAV-25. Yet the Coalition prevailed, and not only in defense, but also in assault.

Now let's just make a mind experiment - 1991, Kuweit, US forces have T-72M and M1 as their prime battle tank, Iraq has M1A1(HA). What will you see? Again a Coalition victory. With heavier losses of course, as the matchup of old model T-72 with 1960s ammo (Remember, Iraq used BM-15 APFSDS at best, AFAIK mostly BM-12 - that is roughly on par with M735A1 and M735 105mm) against M1A1(HA) is really pretty poor ('bout as poor as between Sherman M50 and T-55 I would say), but based on historical record of Iraqi army, the crucial difference will be in following areas:
-Iraqi M1A1s will hit desert mostly due to lack of regular boresighting
-Their electronics would not work and even if it does, the crews are not trained to do so.
-A third of M1A1s will be broken down by bad maintenance
-A third would be abandoned in panic
-The rest will either fight from stationary positions, will try to charge in parade groun d formations or will blunder aimlessly around the battlefield. Republican Guards might pose a problem, but then not unbeatable.
-The C3I structure of Iraqi army will crumble just as fast.
In the end you'll have lots of burning M1A1s and few destroyed US T-72s.

What am I basing this on? On experience of an US tanker who trained the Kuwaitis with M1A2s. And the Kuwaitis are still a bit better in this regard than Iraqi army was. What did he say (or rather write)? That the Kuwaitis neglected such petty unwarlike things as boresighting. That none of the crews fulfilled US gunnery standards and the single crew in the battalion that hit the target on 3rd try already was treated as wondermen and sharpshooters.
Similar things were also reported by our instructors teaching the new Iraqi army how to operate T-72. They said the Iraqis treated them with despect at first "What are you going to teach us, eh? We're combat veterans with war experience!". A quick demonstration incl. gunnery between Czech and Iraqi crew did effectively shut them up.
So here you can see enough examples, how where the crew was trained can mean pretty big shift in combat value of a vehicle, not by means of adding it armor or so, but by means of rising its combat effectiveness (or downgrading it).

To sum it all up: The best tanks in the world will do you no good if the crew and their commanders do not know what to do with it.
Or, to paraphrase one important military saying: Bad tanks and good tactics are the slowest and hardest path to victory. Superb tanks and bad tactics means just a lot of noise before the defeat.