Red Army = most effective force !

[Marcello]

"do you mean strictly technically"

With the caveat that evaluating armies purely on the basis of weapon systems matchup isn't advisable, T-64A vs M60A1 sounds a lot better than T-80B vs M1A1 (for the soviet side, that is).

[Smersh]

sorry, I meant both techniqually and materially(numbers)

[JaM]

Red Army was impressive force on paper, but situation on the field would be different. Most of the equipment was just cannon fodder,mayority of tanks used were still T-55,T-62.Later after 1986 they had more T-80B but there were Leopards-2, M1A1 and Challys.

[Mobhack]

Thier problems always seemed to be poor build quality, and lack of spares and repairs.

Vehicles were dumped outside in the open and left without maintenance to fester with the snow piling up in winter etc - only a few were actually fired up and used for training or some obsolete vehicles were actually used instead of the actual unit kit for training, so if the baloon actually went up then the conscript crews would have little clue about thier t-72s as they had trained on say T-54.

I recall buying some "Baikal" brand 12 bore shotgun shells back in the 70's. Allegedly for export (or a cunning KGB plan to make Westerners complacent about USSR ammo quality ?? ) - 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).

Andy

[Marek_Tucan]

Similar situation Mobhack describes was with T-35 heavy tanks already before WW2 - their units were training on T-26's and T-35 was being fired up just for parades.

[Kuklinovsky]

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.

[Marcello]

Similar situation Mobhack describes was with T-35 heavy tanks already before WW2 - their units were training on T-26's and T-35 was being fired up just for parades.

Apart from the future planned conversion to SPA, looking good on parades was pretty much the only good thing that "thing" was good for.

Thier problems always seemed to be poor build quality

My father's Brezhnev era export Belarus tractor would probably disagree that.Very reliable, rugged and easy to repair.The casting of some components is a sight to behold. Just an anedocte, mind you, but at least a bit more relevant to the matter of quality of soviet mechanics than shotgun shells.

Red Army was impressive force on paper, but situation on the field would be different. Most of the equipment was just cannon fodder,mayority of tanks used were still T-55,T-62.Later after 1986 they had more T-80B but there were Leopards-2, M1A1 and Challys.

As I noted previously timing is critical. Broadly speaking with the T-64 and the T-72 the soviets aquired an half generation lead over NATO, introducing the 125mm gun and composite armor while the west was still using 105mm guns and conventional cast/rolled armor.In its days the T-64A was the best tank in the world, by far.By the time western 3rd generation MBTs came online there were a lot of them in service, even if the bulk was still T-55/T-62.I would note that cannon fodder is a relative term. The Leopard 1 had less armor than a WW2 era Panther and a Leo1 driver I know was pretty explicit in telling me that they harbored no illusions about their fate had they been hit.A T-62 would have killed them just fine.
During the 80's the soviet were stuck playing catch up.

[Marek_Tucan]

Marcello said:
Apart from the future planned conversion to SPA, looking good on parades was pretty much the only good thing that "thing" was good for.

Definitely The TR-28 was, OTOH, rather combat-capable as it seems, esp. the uparmored version...

My father's Brezhnev era export Belarus tractor would probably disagree that.Very reliable, rugged and easy to repair.The casting of some components is a sight to behold. Just an anedocte, mind you, but at least a bit more relevant to the matter of quality of soviet mechanics than shotgun shells.

OTOH ammo quality is closer to mil affairs As for Belarus tractors, found also diametrally different reviews, anyway here they were absolutely ignored in comparison with our industry

As I noted previously timing is critical. Broadly speaking with the T-64 and the T-72 the soviets aquired an half generation lead over NATO, introducing the 125mm gun and composite armor while the west was still using 105mm guns and conventional cast/rolled armor.In its days the T-64A was the best tank in the world, by far.By the time western 3rd generation MBTs came online there were a lot of them in service, even if the bulk was still T-55/T-62.I would note that cannon fodder is a relative term. The Leopard 1 had less armor than a WW2 era Panther and a Leo1 driver I know was pretty explicit in telling me that they harbored no illusions about their fate had they been hit.A T-62 would have killed them just fine.
During the 80's the soviet were stuck playing catch up.

Upon its introduction T-64 would have a counterpart in Chieftain, designed with defensive battleas against vast numbers in mind, whose gun would do a nasty thing to T-64. Later on the T-64 would be faced with modern 105mm ammo, losing many advantages.
As for Leo vs. T-62, true Leo's armor was weak in most aspects (though front turret, made to be enough to stop BM-20 in 1980's versions, would severely hamper also 115mm sabot performance) but OTOH 105mm gun was more than match for 115 in terms of penetration and accuracy and most of all ROF. Leo would outgun T-62 with ease.Add to that better FC and rangefinder... Think of it as comparison of WW2 Marder and T-34/76. Marder got better gun, but weaker armour. If Marder is on defense and 34's are on offense, Marder does excellently, but not so well when the roles will turn.


Edit: Re: Kuklinovsky, I recommend you to visit tank-net and search through "my **** is bigger than your" type of threads. You will find that many of things you take for granted weren't so, for example quality of 125mm AP ammo. There IS a reason why for a long time primary AT round in Soviet tanks was HEAT despite its crappy accuracy.

[Marcello]

"Vehicles were dumped outside in the open and left without maintenance to fester with the snow piling up in winter etc - only a few were actually fired up and used for training or some obsolete vehicles were actually used instead of the actual unit kit for training, so if the baloon actually went up then the conscript crews would have little clue about thier t-72s as they had trained on say T-54."

I don't know about that. What I have heard (second hand accounts from a tanker in the 3rd Shock Army, mid 80's) is that they trained frequently and on their T-64s.By then they were falling behind the west, and they suspected as much despite what the zampolit told them about western weakness. But the stories about tanks left to rot sound like Cold war era propaganda BS.Maybe some old junk in some Category C unit or some local screwup. I have seen pictures of T-62s with their own garage even when the type was already well obsolete.
As noted previously during the 80's the soviets tried to upgrade their 2.5 generation tanks to keep up with 3rd generation western MBTs that were coming online. As I understand things later got worse. By the time the Gulf war came around against M1A1 HA with M829A1 rounds the soviets could field only limited numbers of T-80U/UD with BM-32 rounds.The T-80s lacked thermal sights, Kontakt-5 coverage had lots of gaps and the BM-32 was nothing to write home about.The frontline tank fleet was mostly made of earlier models with light ERA at that point.

[Smersh]

yes, lets be careful to turn this into a cold war flame debate. nobody wants that.

by the time of the gulf war, the soviet union was at the edge of collapse, and the warsaw pact was disolved. Not exactly a time to be building up to date MBTs in large numbers.

But I agree, with Kuklinovsky.Througout most of the 80s, the warsaw pact held a definite advantage.

The large number of modernized t-55s and T-62s could still knock out much of the older armour in nato forces, which made up the bulk of nato tank forces. From what I have red, Kuklinovsky is right in saying the major threat soviet military planners feared was ATGMs.