Red Army = most effective force !

[Marek_Tucan]

The river crossing aspect is partly true but IRL it was being viewed as "not much practical" IRL... BMP's had sometimes a disturbing tendencies to sink and with deep fording I don't know whether our armz ever rained with combat schnorkels due to the risk of having no escape route while underwater (combat schnorkel wasn't passable for the crew).
Also there aren't so manz river banks suitable for deep fording/amphib crossing - it's about the same as with landing beaches on the sea coast.Plus of course trucks etc. would still need bridges.

[Marcello]

Of course deep fording was rather unhealthy and while the others vehicles were amphibious some were just barely so.
I suspect that there was an underlying attitude along the lines "even if few percent are lost but the rest get through is worth it" but I cannot prove it. The banks will need preparation and only a few places will be suitable.
The point however is that just blowing up a couple of bridges in front of them will not be a show stopper. Ultimately of course it will come down to engineers bridging assets.

[Smersh]

The point however is that just blowing up a couple of bridges in front of them will not be a show stopper.

exactly,

Anyway, all too glad the Cold War didn't break into Hot one as it would be for sure bloody for both sides.

yes, who knows where even a conventional conflict could have escalated to.

[pdoktar]

Funny thing is that nobody didn´t start a war. If Red Army had such huge advantages, it´s kind of interesting that they didn´t even try to pressure the West more politically or something like that. Maybe the war wouldn´t be worth it anyhow, so the Soviet Union building policy of arms went to total waste, hence the collapse of the Soviet empire. They lost the cold war, so it doesn´t matter anymore what their equipment was like in 1980.

And doesn´t the game represent them as quite potent combat vehicles, considering the debate going on about their true quality?

[Marcello]

"Funny thing is that nobody didn´t start a war. If Red Army had such huge advantages, it´s kind of interesting that they didn´t even try to pressure the West more politically or something like that."

I could ask a very similar question.Why didn't the US nuke the USSR in the late 50's-beginning of the 60's, when they enjoyed overwhelming nuclear advantage? Why didn't they even try to pressure the USSR more?
Which brings us to the answer to your question: nukes make people a bit more cautious.

"And doesn´t the game represent them as quite potent combat vehicles, considering the debate going on about their true quality?"

There is some fudge factor inherent to how ERA is handled the game.The T-64/T-72/T-80 have also peculiar armor schemes that is difficult to accurately represent.

[pdoktar]

Yes, the game engine has it´s limitations, particularly with ERA and especially Kontakt-5 which is directly calculated to the armor values of say, T-72BM etc. Still, comparing to similar weastern units, like M1 and Leo2, T-80 and T-72 fares quite well, so in game terms there is no gap between the quality of western and eastern armor.

And thinking of nukes, there were many proxywars between the Soviet Union and US, but nukes were not used, so you can say that the whole buildup in Europe was indifferent, as nukes would be involved there anyway. Maybe conventional war couldn´t be fought in Europe altogether, so it didn´t anymore matter, who had the best conventional forces there.

[Marcello]

The problem (at least this is what I remember, I haven't played much lately beyond testing) is that game ERA seems to be triggered less frequently than what would happen in the real world.But when it works it stops pretty much anything, instead of merely degrading the incoming round.
Another problem is the protection scheme.In the real world the armor protection of any tank will be different from zone to zone.
The upper glacis of an Abrams has a different composition from the lower half which in turn will offer a different amount of protection depending on the level of fuel inside the tanks.
Neverthless on western MBTs and T-55/T-62 there is a certain degree of uniformity.On T-72/T-64/T-80 the philosophy seems to offer maximum protection only in the areas most likely to be hit, at expense of the others like the lower glacis plate. And that are not the only weak spots.Think to the lack of ERA bricks behind the searchlight on T-80U.And these two are only examples.