T80s Vs. Abrams in a cage match!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

A friend who's going to be playing T2k with the group came by tonight and we had a good old 1e slugfest, I was running the glorious People's Revolutionary Forces and trying to push 3 T80s past his running-dog lackey tool of the counterrevolutionary fascist M1...

I got 1 T80 close enough that he got an ammo hit - kaboom!

I got another close enough and actually got a shot off - kaboom again! Wait, no that was ME going Kaboom!

The third one suffered a dead driver and commander, and gutted engine!

I'd forgotten how weirdly elegant the 1e vehicle combat rules are once you find where everything is at.

Also I think I forgot that fire is simultaneous, so I should've gotten three return shots, too.

Oh well, it was just a dust-up so no biggie.

[Olefin]

Actually three T-80's getting dusted while the M1 is still standing sounds just about right. In my first campaign I had an M1 - and ran up quite the count on enemy tanks, APC's and other vehicles, especially as the usual engagement was one on one except during our breakout.

M1 is a very tough tank to kill

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Actually three T-80's getting dusted while the M1 is still standing sounds just about right. In my first campaign I had an M1 - and ran up quite the count on enemy tanks, APC's and other vehicles, especially as the usual engagement was one on one except during our breakout.

M1 is a very tough tank to kill

That was the expected kill ratio in a square fight if the balloon had gone up, 3-1 or 4-1.

The Soviets were rightly scared of the M1. We'd screwed around so badly on tank design for so many years. Well, more doctrine than design, but even after we sat down and said "Yes, we need a main battle tank designed to kill other tanks and get hit and survive" we still couldn't get it right.

I think someone here posted that Creighton Abrams' first design criteria was "I want a PzKpfw V that actually works."

Aaanyway...

Yeah, it was a neat bit of gunslinging. Now that I've shaken the dust off of my combat system skills I really don't see what the big issue with vehicle combat in 1e is; it doesn't seem wonky to me. But I also like to play Hero System and 1e AD&D so who knows what lousy opinions about game systems I have!

[Olefin]

never had any problems with it myself - and our GM had us in some real fights - and remember we had a lot of NPC's with us so he was resolving a lot of action

Having an M1 in the game gives you the ability to do a lot of things differently - its one thing if all you have is a LAV-25 that just about anything can shoot holes in - huge difference when your GM says "the marauders have a BTR-70" when you have an M1 versus a LAV

Course you also have to be ready to spend a lot of time saying "we camp out all day long brewing fuel" as well - and it changed how we got to Warsaw for sure - went from a river expedition to a joint river and road one pretty quickly with that M1 along for the ride - with half the party taking the boat and half on land

[raketenjagdpanzer]

never had any problems with it myself - and our GM had us in some real fights - and remember we had a lot of NPC's with us so he was resolving a lot of action

Having an M1 in the game gives you the ability to do a lot of things differently - its one thing if all you have is a LAV-25 that just about anything can shoot holes in - huge difference when your GM says "the marauders have a BTR-70" when you have an M1 versus a LAV

Course you also have to be ready to spend a lot of time saying "we camp out all day long brewing fuel" as well - and it changed how we got to Warsaw for sure - went from a river expedition to a joint river and road one pretty quickly with that M1 along for the ride - with half the party taking the boat and half on land

Yeah, if you've got a group that can muster the funds for an M1, hope/pray you can get enough camp followers to basically be your fuel refinery...

[The Rifleman]

Interesting to see how the game mechanics work out a M1 vs T80 fight. As was noted before, a ratio of 3 or 4 T80 kills to 1 M1 was mentioned. I was an M60A3 and M1/M1A1 tanker and we we expected to kill at least 5 T72/80s before we met a firey death. Anything less than that and (statistically) the soviets were killing more of our combat power then we were of theirs.

I got a chance in Iraq to crawl around on some T72s. Granted, the IA tanks didn't have thermals and stabilized guns like the twilight soviets would, but I was amazed at how flimsy they were built and how thin the armor was. I few had the sabot holes bored through them so you could see how thin the protection really was.

I read once that a republican guard unit was in a reverse slope defilade, sitting with their engines off. Thus, the advancing M1s didn't see them until they were right ontop of them, making it a more even fight. Soviet tanks on the offense don't have that luxuary.

If its T80s advancing on a M1 using a true turret down defilade, with an alternate and at least 1 supplimentary position, the fight would probably go like this:

M1 is turret down and observes the lead T80 moving. M-1 moves from turret down, to hull down and fires. T80 destroyed. M-1 moves back out of sight before T80s can aquire and switches to alternate position in a turret down defilade and waits. T80s cannot observed M-1 in turret down but M-1 identifies T80s. M1 moves into hull down position, fires, destroyes T80, backs down to turret down position. Remaining T80, suprised by fire from a second position, but at least alert, fires and hits berm. T80 attempts to flank M-1; M-1 is already moving to supplimentary position along likely avenue of approach and is waiting in turret down position.....

I've done 2 NTC rotations, 2 JRTC rotations, and 1 CMTC rotation. Really, what these fights come down to is can the M-1 gunner hit targets on the first shot and is the M-1 commander good enough to find the right defilades and covered routes. I'd assume that by 2000, bad crews on both sides would be pretty much killed off or now tank-less and your "ace" tank crews are the ones left. For their part, I'd think that the Soviet TCs would be reluctant to go on the offense against M-1s and would prefer to play to the strength of their machines. I realize that goes against Soviet army doctrine, but still.....

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Thanks, TR, for the input. Yeah, I would say by '98 or '99 the Soviet "Fire Sack" doctrine may well have been out the door, and as the battlelines reel back and forth, the Soviets may have adapted their tactics, if not globally then locally; knowing that Dzerzhinsky Square was a smoking hole in the ground might well have given rise to more innovation among the tank aces, more adoption of western tactics.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I read once that a republican guard unit was in a reverse slope defilade, sitting with their engines off. Thus, the advancing M1s didn't see them until they were right ontop of them, making it a more even fight. Soviet tanks on the offense don't have that luxuary.

Was that one of the phase-line advances at 73 Easting, where a scout platoon of M2s ran afoul of a laagered Motor Rifle cpy., and the M1s overran the scout's positions without realizing how close they were I saw that on History Channel - real knife fight. One M2 was literally parked on top of a T62's position, suppressing it with Bushmaster fire into the top of the hull.

[The Rifleman]

General Franks, the Corps commander is definately the one that wrote the book I read it in. Can't remember if it was the battle of 73 eastling or not. But I have read stories about how close it was, with M2s using a 25mm gun to "dust off" Iraqi infantry from the decks of the tanks. Those Iraqis had nuts!

I didn't even think about the nukes changing the span of control the soviets had over their units. You're definately right about tactics being less strigently controlled. They'd have failed anways as there are no longed masses of tanks being made in the Urals as replacements for the next three echelon frontal assault.

[Tegyrius]

Yeah, I would say by '98 or '99 the Soviet "Fire Sack" doctrine may well have been out the door, and as the battlelines reel back and forth, the Soviets may have adapted their tactics, if not globally then locally; knowing that Dzerzhinsky Square was a smoking hole in the ground might well have given rise to more innovation among the tank aces, more adoption of western tactics.

In the Czech sourcebook for 2013, I implied that the 6th Separate Tank Brigade has gone this route. As a result, they're considered politically unreliable by the Central Group of Forces' general staff and may be subject to deliberate fuel starvation to prevent them from going rogue or defecting.

- C.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

In the Czech sourcebook for 2013, I implied that the 6th Separate Tank Brigade has gone this route. As a result, they're considered politically unreliable by the Central Group of Forces' general staff and may be subject to deliberate fuel starvation to prevent them from going rogue or defecting.

- C.

Oh wow, that is "chaos at the front" - "Hey Comrade, this unit is winning big!" "They're getting ready to defect, best not give them any supplies."

[Panther Al]

General Franks, the Corps commander is definately the one that wrote the book I read it in. Can't remember if it was the battle of 73 eastling or not. But I have read stories about how close it was, with M2s using a 25mm gun to "dust off" Iraqi infantry from the decks of the tanks. Those Iraqis had nuts!

I didn't even think about the nukes changing the span of control the soviets had over their units. You're definately right about tactics being less strigently controlled. They'd have failed anways as there are no longed masses of tanks being made in the Urals as replacements for the next three echelon frontal assault.

Yep, that was 73 Easting. A Charlie Foxtrot to end all Carlie Foxtrots.


Both my Original TC, and 1SG was in Eagle that got balls deep into that mess, and one of the Cav Platoons Sergeants as well was present for the later portions of it. Basically *no one* knew the other guys was there till they was right on top of each other. And by on top of, they was so close they didn't bother aiming those first rounds. As my 1SG mentioned, his first shot he didn't bother ranging because at that range, it really didn't matter where the dot was calibrated to, since the flight path of the round wouldn't have time to deviate over the target as it would for a target at normal engagement range.

[Legbreaker]

Something else to keep in mind when relating Iraqi vs Soviet performance is that the Iraqi's did not hold the initiative and did not have the massive fire support behind it the Soviet would have been expected to use (air, artillery, etc).
Western tanks are certainly better than the Soviet models one on one, but proper application of the Soviet style doctrine calls for a much more combine arms approach to "suppress" the western forces while their tanks and infantry advance.

[rcaf_777]

Something else to keep in mind when relating Iraqi vs Soviet performance is that the Iraqi's did not hold the initiative and did not have the massive fire support behind it the Soviet would have been expected to use (air, artillery, etc).
Western tanks are certainly better than the Soviet models one on one, but proper application of the Soviet style doctrine calls for a much more combine arms approach to "suppress" the western forces while their tanks and infantry advance.

I would'nt say the they did hold the initiative, I would say they lost the initiative do to the speed of the American Attack.

The Iraqi were trained and equiped by the Soviets and had Soviet Advisors in coutnry up to the invasion of Kuwait. The Republic Guard was well trainied in Soviet Doctrine.

H.R. McMaster the commmader of Ghost Troop, 2 ACR talk about the battle in the series great tank battles on the history channel. he meations that Iraqi had a alot going for them in equipement and training, he rated their static defences as tough. He gives credit to his men's tranining, the equipment and most important AIR POWER

[The Rifleman]

Something else to keep in mind when relating Iraqi vs Soviet performance is that the Iraqi's did not hold the initiative and did not have the massive fire support behind it the Soviet would have been expected to use (air, artillery, etc).
Western tanks are certainly better than the Soviet models one on one, but proper application of the Soviet style doctrine calls for a much more combine arms approach to "suppress" the western forces while their tanks and infantry advance.

You're completely right. The Iraqis had no initiative and did not have the massive fire support of the Soviet army. However, I look at that effect and say that it becomes even MORE prevelant in the world of T2K.

However the soviets rely on massed artillery fire power, but now its limited because the US counter battery fire, nuclear strikes, and lack of ammo. The other big factor is use of rotory wing assets to strike at tanks, which are also mostly gone. The soviet style of massive frontal assaults followed up with echelons of follow on forces would fail, because there is no way to shock and supress the defenders and there aren't hordes of tanks to be used in follow on waves. They've got to conserve what they got and they've also probably learned to use what they have according to the limits of what they can do.