2.640 released

[GaryOwen]

I play on tanksim.ru

Outstanding! Tanksim.ru, a Russian language SB fansite.

[Gibsonm]

Interesting how that site tracks the locations of those that visit it.

Apart from yourself there's an entry for me (who went there after your comment) and one from Tasmania which I presume means DarkAngel was having a look too.

[Sky Hunter]

I play on tanksim.ru - 2 platoon commanders on T-72M1 against me (Leo2A4 platoons). I win, from defence to attack and easy kill T-72M1 (they have difficulty seeing).

LOL! Tanksim fans from Russia are not happy for sure!

Is thermal sight a miracle device which doomed Russian tanks?

[Gibsonm]

Doubt it.

Remember they weren't designed to go "one on one" with western vehicles.

Even during the Great Patriotic War their concept was "quantity has a quality all of its own".

Hence why qualitatively superior Tiger Is and Panthers were overwhelmed by Soviet numerical superiority.

[enigma6584]

LOL! Tanksim fans from Russia are not happy for sure!

Is thermal sight a miracle device which doomed Russian tanks?

Wow...people from Russia actually play this sim. Very, very cool. It is a small world after all.

[Sky Hunter]

Not really. German tanks fought very well against hordes of T-34 an other Soviet tanks. Kill ratio was 4-7:1 on Germans favor. What overwhelmed Third Reich was Allied strategic bombing campaign which prevented Germans from building more advanced tanks. If not, Germany would have most probably stopped Soviet armor onslaught.

As for WP-NATO confrontation - in time Western technological superiority in tanks and other weapons resulted bankruptcy of Soviet "quantity versus quality" doctrine not mentioning about Soviet economy. When 3rd generation NATO tanks were put into service in larger numbers, armadas of Soviet simple tanks ranging from T-55 to T-72BV would have been massacred on Central Front.

BTW, if you want more balanced combat in SBPro during T-72M1 vs western tank scenario, choose Leo-AS1 fitted with M735A1 or DM33 APFSDS rounds. It does not have TIS, this ammo is "fifty-fifty" against T-72M frontal armor, but it has better ballistic calculator. In short it should be funny!

[DarkAngel]

Interesting how that site tracks the locations of those that visit it.

Apart from yourself there's an entry for me (who went there after your comment) and one from Tasmania which I presume means DarkAngel was having a look too.

Yeah but when I got there it was all in double dutch!.

[GaryOwen]

Google is your friend.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.tanksim.ru/&ei=jrr3TuXNE4f8iQLbhfiiDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtanksim.ru%26hl%3Den%26nfpr%3D1%26biw%3D1228%26bih%3D772%26prmd%3Dimvns

[Gibsonm]

Not really. German tanks fought very well against hordes of T-34 an other Soviet tanks. Kill ratio was 4-7:1 on Germans favor. What overwhelmed Third Reich was Allied strategic bombing campaign which prevented Germans from building more advanced tanks. If not, Germany would have most probably stopped Soviet armor onslaught.

Yes thank I'm aware of the broader strategic issues. You solicited comment on T-72 employment and all I said was in effect that is was the application of a long running trend in Soviet operational thinking (have lots of vehicles that are good enough and don't worry about "perfection").

There is another Russian saying ""Best" is the enemy of "good enough""

I wasn't going to waste pages on Allied bombing, infighting within the German bureaucracy, German manufacturing limitations, etc.

As for WP-NATO confrontation in time Western technological superiority in tanks resulted bankruptcy of Soviet "quantity versus quality" doctrine. When 3rd generation NATO tanks were put into service in larger numbers, armadas of Soviet simple tanks would have been massacred on Central Front.

Sure but after you have dealt with the first echelon you need an intact logistic system to deal with the second and third ...

I was in Germany in the late 80s and know for example (saw the stuff on the ground) that the Brits stockpiled Tk ammunintion beside their fighting positions because they had little faith in the NATO log system being able to supply the amounts of ammunition at the rate required to maintain a defence. Esp. after that defence became a delaying defence.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Gibsonm

[Gibsonm]

In short it should be funny!

As someone who spent quiet a while in Leo I training to face that threat (albeit unlikely due to our geographical location) I can assure you it wasn't.

[Sky Hunter]

- simply Soviet warfighting doctrine was based on belief that sustaining gigantic losses is not acceptable for the enemy and as a result it will be defeated. From their point of view Soviets accepted their own huge losses as a price of final victory. However such doctrine most possibly couldn't have succeeded without Western Allies help during World War II. Notice several issues: unimaginable Soviet losses during 1941 campaign, Allied bombing campaign, quite huge Lend-Lease help for the Soviet Union and other fronts in Europe opened by Allies in 1943 (Italy) and 1944 (Normandy). That is not true Great Patriotic War was only war between Soviet Union and Germany playing alone (maybe on Moon) as Soviet propaganda tried to claim for fifty years.

- if you refer to late 1980s situation, take into account it was time of revolution in military affairs on the NATO side. Those days the Reagan Administration introduced in practice Air-Land Battle doctrine (Rogers doctrine) concept. Under this doctrine heavy emphasizing was put on defeating WP second end third strategic echelons before they could come close to the FEBA through destroying communication infrastructure, POLs and those forces directly by means of air, missile and artillery strikes. Almost all weapons needed were present in NATO arsenal at that time (MLRS, AH-64A, F-117A, F-15E with LANTRIN pod, Tornado IDS, conventional Tomahawks on US Navy vessels and plenty of aerial PGMs, ISR platforms). Also NATO ground forces were prepared accordingly (M1A1/Leo-2/Challenger tanks, Bradley/Marder/Warrior IFVs, cutting edge TOW-2A/B and HOT-2 ATGMs). So I am not sure if those Soviet rear forces would still constitute a decisive factor having also in mind US REFORGER operation.

- having stated "funny" I meant balanced fight, not causing sad massacre of blind T-72M1 tanks playing Leo-2A6 with DM-53 round or something like that.

PS. Not so hypothetical situation. Didn't Australian tanks fight during Vietnam War?

[Gibsonm]

So I am not sure those forces would still constitute a decisive factor having also in mind US REFORGER operation.

Again I was there on the ground.

There were serious concerns about commandeered civilian aircraft or C-5s laden with troops actually getting through the hostile air threat to man the pre positioned kit.

PS. Not so hypothetical situation. Didn't Australian tanks fight during Vietnam War?

Sure they did but how are Centurions firing APBC at buildings in Binh Ba:

Or fighting at CORAL and BALMORAL or reducing bunker systems pre 1972, relevant to Leo AS1 facing T-72M1?

The NVA didn't have T-72 and by the time they employed "conventional" tactics both we and the US were long gone and it was up to the ARVN.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Gibsonm

[Captain_Colossus]

Not really. German tanks fought very well against hordes of T-34 an other Soviet tanks. Kill ratio was 4-7:1 on Germans favor. What overwhelmed Third Reich was Allied strategic bombing campaign which prevented Germans from building more advanced tanks. If not, Germany would have most probably stopped Soviet armor onslaught.

Coulda woulda shoulda- if Stalin weren't in charge or they hadn't purged the officer corps or if Soviet tank crews were better trained or the Soviets had done a number of things differently things might have been over quicker for Germany. If the French and British would have invaded when the Germans were fighting in Poland- when the German frontier was undefended, that would have ended it for the Germans, too. You can only make do with what you have- everything else is complaining after the fact, that's part of war.

And yes it's true- tanks aren't designed to fight one on one, otherwise the basic maneuver element would be a single tank rather than a platoon or company. But tanks aren't organized that way. And everything that has been said about Soviet theory is correct- maneuver elements in the Soviet union could be more like regiment or division level. Smaller Soviet units in WW3 were expected to be autonomous and survive on their own in enemy territory without expectation of support. What would like a slaughter locally of Soviet units on a strategic map wouldn't look like anything- everything would look like it's proceeding on schedule. The Soviets did not plan to fight every single tank or fight through every single strongpoint or clear every single town. The plan was to overwhelm defenses at the joints, they had to reach the Atlantic before NATO advantage at sea would turn the tide and reinforcements could be brought in by sea.

As for WP-NATO confrontation - in time Western technological superiority in tanks and other weapons resulted bankruptcy of Soviet "quantity versus quality" doctrine not mentioning about Soviet economy. When 3rd generation NATO tanks were put into service in larger numbers, armadas of Soviet simple tanks ranging from T-55 to T-72BV would have been massacred on Central Front.

Guess what- during the 1980s the unprecedented military buildup in the USA wasn't bought and paid for, what we're seeing now in ballooning national debt is the result of a practice called defict spending at that time. I don't understand what the point is however about bankruptcy here. It doesn't change what Soviet thinking was.

Suffice to say, the Soviets did not plan to fight until every single tank was wiped out, that's stupid. In principle at least, what they would have done is conducted division level reconnaissance, find the weakest points, for example where NATO national commands were co-mingled, and attack there. Then follow on units would bypass what they could and pour through the breech. This could also happen with nuclear chemical or biological weapons attacks to prep it.

[DarkAngel]

The NVA didn't have T-72 and by the time they employed "conventional" tactics both we and the US were long gone and it was up to the ARVN.

Well they did try it once at a little place called Ben Het. They used PT-76's and it didn't go well for them.

[Gibsonm]

Sure, I know thay had at least two T-55 variants (or Chinese copy) based on the footage of the "liberation" of the Presidential Palace:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3543060046731551771#

But I'll stop there at the risk of this thread spiralling too far OT.

[Captain_Colossus]

Doubt it.

Remember they weren't designed to go "one on one" with western vehicles.

Correct. Tanks aren't really designed to fight that way, either, as if to decide a better tank contest. Tanks fight as organizations within the sphere of larger organizations.

There is this assumption basically that the Soviets and the WP had numerical superiority, and that's it. Really (and this could change depending on what decade you're looking at), total superiority in manpower really isn't all that high, counting police and security forces, auxillaries, reserves and so forth, the overall advantage might only be like 2.5:1. However, locally, the Soviets would attack so that the advantage might be like 15:1. Once the ball is rolling, once the Soviets are behind you and messing up the rear areas, then things start taking on a different dimension, the character of the war is no longer a comparison of numbers.

The Soviets had to do this- over the long run better technology would start swinging in favor of NATO, but in the short term, the momentum of enormous shock and violence are what the Soviets wanted to carry in in order to end the war as soon as possible. That's what the T-72 is designed for. They don't have to worry about it being as survivable, there's no time to recover, send them for depot level repairs and send damaged tanks back in; you write those off and keep going, they wouldn't be back in business in time to matter. That's reflected in the design itself. It's not that the Soviets didn't know how to make a tank go in reverse, it's just not a reflection in the design goal of what the tank was expected to do. Likewise, the poor ride comfort and ergonomic design are reflection of the idea that the war was supposed to be over before those things had tired the crews- in days, not weeks or months. The idea is not to spend time and resources on an uber tank design when losses are expected to be high anyway, but in the end if it does the job even with casualties, well winning would be the only thing that would matter and the proof of the concept.

[Sky Hunter]

There were serious concerns about commandeered civilian aircraft or C-5s laden with troops actually getting through the hostile air threat to man the pre positioned kit.

I think US troops for manning prepositioned stocks would be transported to Europe before war's beginning - during time of rising tensions. What I referred to was rather sea transport of US troops with heavy armament.

Sure they did but how are Centurions firing APBC at buildings in Binh Ba:

Or reducing bunker systems pre 1972, relevant to Leo AS1 facing T-72M1?

Simply it was always possibility of new war in South-East Asia provoked by some Soviet client state armed with Soviet tanks in which Australian Army would participate. Remember then even during Vietnam War (1972 Easter offensive) NVA deployed armored formations with T-54 and PT-76 tanks.

[Sky Hunter]

Coulda woulda shoulda- if Stalin weren't in charge or they hadn't purged the officer corps or if Soviet tank crews were better trained or the Soviets had done a number of things differently things might have been over quicker for Germany. If the French and British would have invaded when the Germans were fighting in Poland- when the German frontier was undefended, that would have ended it for the Germans, too. You can only make do with what you have- everything else is complaining after the fact, that's part of war.

Yes, I do it exactly in relation to 1941-45 events. Other considerations you presented above are irrelevant here.

And yes it's true- tanks aren't designed to fight one on one, otherwise the basic maneuver element would be a single tank rather than a platoon or company. But tanks aren't organized that way.

Are you kidding?

First, basic principle of armor strategy is possessing qualitatively better tanks than enemy equals they can easily destroy enemy tanks. That's plain and simple. The West chose that way and succeeded indirectly in the Cold War and directly in Gulf War without suffering heavy losses. Alternative way is very costly and cannot guarantee success. So don't spread rumors hordes of primitive tanks defeating smaller number of more advanced tanks is a correct strategy because it isn't. Even Eastern Front battles proved that - Soviets achieved victory not by their sheer numbers but because Germans cannot produce and employ a bit more much better tanks thanks to facts I mentioned earlier.

Second, your thinking can be applicable only to situation when both sides have more or less qualitatively equal tanks like WP and NATO in 1950-80 period. Yet we discuss completely different situation here and your opinion about Soviet "championship" in maneuver warfare is too exaggregated - see below.

And everything that has been said about Soviet theory is correct- maneuver elements in the Soviet union could be more like regiment or division level.

And attacks of Soviet tank regiments would be repelled by NATO mechanized...battalions!

Smaller Soviet units in WW3 were expected to be autonomous and survive on their own in enemy territory without expectation of support.

"Autonomy" and Soviet military doctrine are two completely different worlds. Moreover I am afraid support and logistics were not strong sides of Soviet Army and indigenous stock numbers of Soviet units were not large.

What would like a slaughter locally of Soviet units on a strategic map wouldn't look like anything- everything would look like it's proceeding on schedule. The Soviets did not plan to fight every single tank or fight through every single strongpoint or clear every single town. The plan was to overwhelm defenses at the joints, they had to reach the Atlantic before NATO advantage at sea would turn the tide and reinforcements could be brought in by sea.

Unfortunately in late 1980s they would be slaughtered almost everywhere they would tried to attack. Think about NATO's OdeB in 1980s and anti-tank strength of NATO front-line troops of that period. Besides you forget about Rogers Doctrine's most important point - Soviet troops would be slaughtered massively before reaching FEBA and that is key point here.

Guess what- during the 1980s the unprecedented military buildup in the USA wasn't bought and paid for, what we're seeing now in ballooning national debt is the result of a practice called defict spending at that time. I don't understand what the point is however about bankruptcy here. It doesn't change what Soviet thinking was.

So think about Soviet Union still existing and Cold War going on now! What would be more expensive?

Suffice to say, the Soviets did not plan to fight until every single tank was wiped out, that's stupid. In principle at least, what they would have done is conducted division level reconnaissance, find the weakest points, for example where NATO national commands were co-mingled, and attack there. Then follow on units would bypass what they could and pour through the breech. This could also happen with nuclear chemical or biological weapons attacks to prep it.

The Soviets planned to suffer huge losses to win - that is most important point of their wartime strategy. And yes, they were stupid because preparing for such war they bankrupted themselves more than Reagan did. Hordes of simple tanks in the end proved to be very expensive and thus poorly maintained (for instance Marshall Yazov arrived unexpected to one of premiere tank units and...one third of tanks was not serviceable!), crew training and command quality were simplistic, centralization of command driven by communist ideology and lack of initiative amongst lower ranks were also widespread (many Soviet conscripts could not even understand their officers because they did not speak Russian!) - everything not on par with Western standards. So your theory about Napoleonic craftsmanship applied to Soviet Army commanders is a myth.

In sum Soviet primitive doctrine could have succeeded only if they had massively used nuclear weapons first or had attacked NATO in earlier period of Cold War - during 60s and 70s. However in the late 1980s, when NATO overwhelmed their numbers with advanced weapons, Soviets would be beaten back quite quickly suffering heavy losses but without victory.

[Marko]

I often wonder were the soviets as numerically as strong as we in the west were told

How much of the Equipment was functional.the soviets were masters at making western Intelligence thinking they had more and better equipment then they actually had.

Some commentates believe a number of W/P forces would have not fought or even changed Sides.it was also in the interests of a lot of very powerful lobbyist's and weapons Manufactures and the military them self's.

That the west was facing a armoured juggernaut.and more and more equipment needed to Be procured to meet this threat there is no doubt the soviet army was a real threat.i once Watched a documentary and a retired soviet general stated there was a plan of attack but Only if the west Attacked first.the soviet plan was to advance a hundred miles a day.

[Gibsonm]

I think US troops for manning prepositioned stocks would be transported to Europe before war's beginning - during time of rising tensions. What I referred to was rather sea transport of US troops with heavy armament.

Except that wasn't the idea behind Reforger.

The idea was a no notice atk where the US had to fly crews in but the vehicles were ready (fueled, ammo loaded, etc.)

Sea transport of complete units was not Reforger but standard reinforcements. Which in any case would have to deploy from say France fwd, since unloading in Holland / North Germany and then deploying Sth to their AO was pretty much across the Soviet axis of advance.

Remember then even during Vietnam War (1972 Easter offensive) NVA deployed armored formations with T-54 and PT-76 tanks.

Yes I do remember.

But if you are trying to say that our Mk5 Centurion with 20 Pdr (84mm) was a match for T-72M1 with 125mm then you are an optimist.

[solus]

IMHO, all speculations about the possible outcome of "the Third World War" are useless, 'couse it's hard to imagine, that such a colossal conflict wouldn't turn into a total nuclear war, in which all the tanks, planes and ships would immediately become meaningless.

[SeanPatrick]

Interesting how that site tracks the locations of those that visit it.

Y'know...Teamspeak has a feature that puts a flag next to each person's name, identifying what country they're in.

[Captain_Colossus]

Yes, I do it exactly in relation to 1941-45 events. Other considerations you presented above are irrelevant here.

Are you kidding?

First, basic principle of armor strategy is possessing qualitatively better tanks than enemy equals they can easily destroy enemy tanks. That's plain and simple. The West chose that way and succeeded indirectly in the Cold War and directly in Gulf War without suffering heavy losses. Alternative way is very costly and cannot guarantee success. So don't spread rumors hordes of primitive tanks defeating smaller number of more advanced tanks is a correct strategy because it isn't. Even Eastern Front battles proved that - Soviets achieved victory not by their sheer numbers but because Germans cannot produce and employ a bit more much better tanks thanks to facts I mentioned earlier.

I repeat- tanks are not designed to fight one on one. If that's the case, why doesn't each side just develop one end all be all tank with a nuclear missile launcher and near impregnable armor? The tank could swim, carry infantry, carry a mortar battery, simply be the last answer. According to you, it's implied that there would be no such thing as mechanized infantry to work with the tanks, since tanks fight one on one, a tank is a universe onto itself and does everything.

The way tanks are organized implies that they don't fight one on one, the single tank is vulnerable. Just look at the Iraqis- their greatest problem is that their units were isolated or cut off from higher HQ, i.e., blind. In that situation even Arab T-72 tanks or US Marine M60A1 tanks could spank them- and those are tanks of the same generally generation or capability. Yet a one on one comparison doesn't work, the results were still lopsided and indicate more than a one on one comparison. In that situation even vehicles not designed to fight with tanks such as Bradley were getting the better of them- that shouldn't be possible in your idea that tanks fight one on one. A one on one comparison would give different results.

Second, your thinking can be applicable only to situation when both sides have more or less qualitatively equal tanks like WP and NATO in 1950-80 period. Yet we discuss completely different situation here and your opinion about Soviet "championship" in maneuver warfare is too exaggregated - see below.

This is all blah-blah. Lots of words which denote nothing that I've said. See below.

"Autonomy" and Soviet military doctrine are two completely different worlds. Moreover I am afraid support and logistics were not strong sides of Soviet Army and indigenous stock numbers of Soviet units were not large.

To be honest, I really can't make heads or tails out of this sentence. It's not descriptive of anything, the words themselves don't come together to make sense, even if the words themselves are intelligible, the sentece they form isn't. Maybe you could re-phrase.

Unfortunately in late 1980s they would be slaughtered almost everywhere they would tried to attack. Think about NATO's OdeB in 1980s and anti-tank strength of NATO front-line troops of that period. Besides you forget about Rogers Doctrine's most important point - Soviet troops would be slaughtered massively before reaching FEBA and that is key point here.

If you really break it down, more likely than not, your scenario wouldn't even play out. If it really came to this, the Soviets would have opened up with, or sooner or later would have used nuclear, chemical or biological weapons- either to paste front line defenses to begin with, or resorted to them if they weren't making headway. The conventional plans for either side would have been tossed out the window.

So think about Soviet Union still existing and Cold War going on now! What would be more expensive?

What the....huh? What are you trying to say with this?

The Soviets planned to suffer huge losses to win - that is most important point of their wartime strategy. And yes, they were stupid because preparing for such war they bankrupted themselves more than Reagan did. Hordes of simple tanks in the end proved to be very expensive and thus poorly maintained (for instance Marshall Yazov arrived unexpected to one of premiere tank units and...one third of tanks was not serviceable!), crew training and command quality were simplistic, centralization of command driven by communist ideology and lack of initiative amongst lower ranks were also widespread (many Soviet conscripts could not even understand their officers because they did not speak Russian!) - everything not on par with Western standards. So your theory about Napoleonic craftsmanship applied to Soviet Army commanders is a myth.

In sum Soviet primitive doctrine could have succeeded only if they had massively used nuclear weapons first or had attacked NATO in earlier period of Cold War - during 60s and 70s. However in the late 1980s, when NATO overwhelmed their numbers with advanced weapons, Soviets would be beaten back quite quickly suffering heavy losses but without victory.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. My 'theory of Napoleonic craftsmanship' as you attribute it to me is just so out there. Do you know what a straw man is? That's when you invent some nutty idea like that and attribute to someone else so that you can tear it down. If you think anywhere I made a comparison to Napoleonic era tactics, you know less about this subject than you think.

[Jippo]

Russians had and still have the conventional firepower to wipe out any defensive positions. It makes no difference what equipment soldiers in that position have if they are in no condition to use. Imho the real game begins after the east block already gained their first victories with their overwhelming artillery.

[Captain_Colossus]

That's why what this guy is saying doesn't match up. If he believes that tanks simply fight one on one, then just create SB scenarios which do exactly that- take away artillery, infantry and everything else, the winner of a one on one engagement wins the war. If the T-72 got its licks in somehow, I guess that proves the T-72 is better or something.

I would place greater stock in say, the US Army equipped with the last M60 tank models against the Egyptian Army with M1 Abrams tanks. Why- because the US Army has world beating, first class support behind its tanks which would still make this a very unfair fight for the Egyptians. Funny how that would determine so much more than one on one engagments.