T80s Vs. Abrams in a cage match!

[The Rifleman]

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.

I would assume that WW3 in eurpoe would have constant chance meeting engagements just like that. I even read in a book about Soviet Airland battle doctrine that they expect early in the war, these types of engagement are more common then deliberate assaults and defense. Armored Cav regiments would probably see them the most, followed by divisional Cav squadrons or even tank battalion recon platoons. They would either be screening the tanks following them or hiding the lines so they'd probably take some heavy losses, good at it or not.

BTW, I think very highly of 3ACR. Probably was the best Regminent sized Cav unit in the army at performing its job, although 11 ACR probably was pretty darn good from all the time at NTC. My platoon was an attachment to the 278 ACR in Iraq, and by National Guard standards, it was a fairly well run organization.

[Legbreaker]

However, I look at that effect and say that it becomes even MORE prevelant in the world of T2K.

It's a good thing then that tanks on all sides are so scarce then and unlikely to be used in numbers greater than half a dozen at a time. This isn't as bad for the Soviets as it may appear either - with the west only being able to field a handful of tanks at a time, and the necessity to concentrate their force, it only takes a few heavy mortars/artillery tubes to achieve the same effect of suppression as a few years earlier.

And artillery/mortar shells are a LOT cheaper and easier to produce than tanks...

Doctrine is sure to have evolved both through hard learned battlefield lessons and limited resources, however I don't see commanders on either side gaining an undisputed edge they didn't have pre-war simply because there's less of everything to go around, no matter how good or shoddy individual pieces of kit may be.

[The Rifleman]

It's a good thing then that tanks on all sides are so scarce then and unlikely to be used in numbers greater than half a dozen at a time. This isn't as bad for the Soviets as it may appear either - with the west only being able to field a handful of tanks at a time, and the necessity to concentrate their force, it only takes a few heavy mortars/artillery tubes to achieve the same effect of suppression as a few years earlier.

And artillery/mortar shells are a LOT cheaper and easier to produce than tanks...

Doctrine is sure to have evolved both through hard learned battlefield lessons and limited resources, however I don't see commanders on either side gaining an undisputed edge they didn't have pre-war simply because there's less of everything to go around, no matter how good or shoddy individual pieces of kit may be.

True about artillery being cheaper, but I disagree about needing less of it. There is quite a bit of data about how much artillery it takes to knock out dug in infantry units and in a T2K world, units can still dig in just as well as they could pre-war. We all know the Soviets LOVE artillery, but I think that you don't have an apprication for how it plays into their tactical doctrine. These guys have got it down to a science where they can tell you what size, number of guns and types of rounds you need for a target that is X,Y, and Z.

Also, the soviets style is to kill with mass. Their AK74s are all firing full auto, not really going for accuracy but volume. Ditto the artillery. Their tanks are pretty flimsy, but they got a ton of them, all blazing away in hopes that you can't stop them all.

Remember, 1 M1 is reasonably expected to knock out 5 T80s and with a lot less tanks in the world, units have more battlespace to work with. The M-1s advantage is in either meeting engagements or when they are on the defense.

Commanders have to "employ their units in accordance with their capabilities" to be successful. To try and make your equipment do otherwise, would lead to failure. I'm not saying that the soviets have bad stuff, but rather that its designed to be used for a purpose. As circumstances change, you find yourself on the short end of the stick. On the US side, that can cause accute problems too. For example M1s eat up a lot more fuel, and spares have to cross an ocean. That means that you have to plan WHEN you can fight, in addition to where and how.

[pmulcahy11b]

One thing that the Abrams has in its favor is a powerful, quick-power response, and decently-reliable gas turbine (but fuel-hungry) engine. The T-80 has a gas turbine engine underpowered for it's weight, unreliable, and also fuel-hungry.

[Raellus]

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

Denigrating Soviet capabilities based on the poor performance of one of its client states is unfair. It's really an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying that the U.S. military of the '70s and early '80s sucked because the South Vietnamese military got spanked by the NVA.

With all due respect to Mr. McMaster, every serious military historian rates the Iraqi military in both 1991 and in 2003 as a markedly inferior opponent, including its "elite" Republican Guard formations. That's not to say that Coalition tankers didn't risk their lives facing off against Iraqi armor, but to rate the opposition as "tough" is a tad bit disengenuous. The fact of the matter is that even Republican Guard formations did not have the equipment, training, and command and control capabilities of comparable Soviet Category I divisions.

[Legbreaker]

True about artillery being cheaper, but I disagree about needing less of it.

But with less tanks, infantry etc being used by an enemy force, and their corresponding necessity to concentrate that force over a much smaller area, not as many artillery pieces are needed to blanket said enemy in a similar to pre-war pasting of HE.
As we know, mortars can be turned out of a decently equipped backyard workshop, tanks cannot. Therefore, while the artillery in use may on the whole be a little more primitive compared to laser guided munitions, there's a greater likelihood of mantaining a decent number of tubes.
Additionally, an artillery round itself can be quite simple and built a LOT easier and cheaper than a tank. Chances are very good there'll be plenty of HE to go around those artillery pieces. Sure, it's not necessarily going to be as effective as a Copperhead round, but 120mm high explosive raining down from above has an effectiveness all of it's own.

So, to reiterate my earlier points, Western equipment is generally better than the Soviet kit one on one, however the ease in which the Soviets could "resupply" themselves with a lesser drop in technology than western forces is likely to maintain the status quo and allow the Soviets (and their allies) to retain effectiveness.

[The Rifleman]

But with less tanks, infantry etc being used by an enemy force, and their corresponding necessity to concentrate that force over a much smaller area, not as many artillery pieces are needed to blanket said enemy in a similar to pre-war pasting of HE.

But you're missing the point; smaller units mean that they are covering a larger area and are less dense. That means that more rounds are needed. Also, as I noted above, there is plenty of dirt. It takes a lot of rounds to route out a dug in infantry unit.

Chances are very good there'll be plenty of HE to go around those artillery pieces. Sure, it's not necessarily going to be as effective as a Copperhead round, but 120mm high explosive raining down from above has an effectiveness all of it's own..

True, HE is HE, but with armored vehicles, that isn't going to cut it. Second, I don't think you're thinking about how many rounds truly are needed for a sustained artillery barrage to uproot a dug in infantry unit. Somewhere, I have a cold war soviet algorithum that tells how many rounds an artillery unit needs to fire for X target. I'd be guessing that an average sized T2K soviet division has anywhere from 5-10 howitzers in its divisional artillery group and probably double that in 120mm mortars in one or two regimental artillery groups. Give them credit for roughly 20 artillery pieces. Thats in reality roughly 1 battlion worth of artillery.

With a ROF of about 5 rounds per minute, from 20 artillery pieces, you're looking at 100 rounds per minute. So, if you wanted to attack an enemy force, with a battalion of supporting artillery, you could probably suppress a small brigade. But to start taking out their fortifications, you're looking at a sustained barrage thats got to go about 20-30 minutes. Now you're looking at 2000 to 3000 rounds of artillery for just one assualt in a divisional sized battle. Hitting armored vehicle is tough, becauase as soon as they take indirect, they move at an angle, so now you've got to change with range and azmuth from your FOs..... wasting more time/ammo. In the type of war we are talking about dropping 2000 rounds in a big deal.

1 hit from a 120mm gun in an M-1 is more then likely going to 1 shot a T80, even if its a more simple HEAT round. So whats the more effiecent method of killing a tank

So, to reiterate my earlier points, Western equipment is generally better than the Soviet kit one on one, however the ease in which the Soviets could "resupply" themselves with a lesser drop in technology than western forces is likely to maintain the status quo and allow the Soviets (and their allies) to retain effectiveness.

This final paragraph I mostly agree with. The simpler technology allows the soviets to build more, and it probably also allows them to recover knocked out vehicles and restore them.

Where you and I keep disagreeing is that I don't think the ratio of what the soviets can "resupply" would ever be enough, if they take losses at a rate of 5 to 1. Further, and more importantly, I believe that there this ratio would never be enough to keep a status quo; just the way types of equipment and tactics are, the soviets end up on the short end of the stick. Like I noted above, soviets rely heavily on artillery as their "unit killer" and there is no way that they can fight like that in T2K with thousands of rounds going out the tubes.

Same thing with the AK/M16, but to a far lessor extent. Using a suppression weapon like the AK is great, but aimed fire is easier to replace. I believe that in this cirucumstance, the Soviets could easily make up ground. After all, reloading spent brass is a lot easier than making new tanks or new 122mm HE.

[Panther Al]

A couple more points to remember:

Yes, Sov gear is easier to replace - and to a degree, repair. But do recall the SOP wasn't to repair equipment past a certain point, it was to replace.

Secondly, Sov Doctrine was very heavy on Arty - of all sorts. But that dependancy on it means you have a very large tail feeding it. I've been in a tank that has been hit on the roof with a 82mm, all it did was screw up the stuff hanging on top, our blocks, and such like. A 120, being bigger, was figured to only have a 50/50 chance of putting a tank out of action. We wouldn't enjoy being inside it at the time, but we had a decent chance of not seeing the round penetrate. What was most likely to happen would be a mob-kill. Tube artillery on the other hand... well.

Now, up through 98ish, the sov's would be able to by and large support its units with the volume of supply it needs to fight the way those units are meant to, and that assuming the expected reduction in supply assets being matched with a reduction in units to be supplied. Past that, from the way TWSNBN tells it, the whole supply and support situation for both sides goes to hell in a hand basket. At this point, the advantage shifts from quantity over quality, to quality over quantity. Yes, an M1 still has the same 5 to 1 advantage it did in 96 as it does in 99. But, those handfulls of M1's are no longer facing dozens of T anythings supported by tens of thousands of artillery rounds announcing the arrival of those T80's. They are facing perhaps a few hundred rounds, more or less blind fired (And thats how the sov's do it: they target a grid square and smear it - point targets are usually targeted via direct fire.). Its now, that the balance goes out the window. From what I see in the various books, tank strengths are roughly equal in number for both sides. Which means the strengths are very much not equal.

Now, one other thing to remember, is the balance of the armoured forces. Recall that most of the Category A units went east before the whole show started in the west. Some of those units came back, and some units was formed out of reserves of A level equipment as well as new production. But the bulk of forces in the west was Category B at best, and those A units present, would have been shoved at the forefront of the fighting in hopes of slowing down the Allies. A *lot* of top notch (T90, T80) equipment would have been lost in those first 2 years. Where as while there would be significant losses in the same level of NATO equipment (M1, Chally2, Leo2), that equipment is *much* more survivable, and with the initial fighting allowing recovery of significant amounts of those that are lost, allied armour forces would be very high protein and low in fat, compared to opposite makeup of Soviet forces which would be made up of primarily category B and C equipment: T72's and T62's at best, T55's at worst. And we all know how well the T72 performs compared to anything the allies have thanks to Desert Storm (In short, awful. After Desert Storm the Russians couldn't give T72's away - thats why the T90 was developed in the Real: Taking the T72, and upgrading the vehicle by taking elements of the T80 (Firecontrol) and other items, leaving the T90 as nothing more than a very in depth upgrade of the T72 - the first T90's was actually labeled T72BM).

In 95, I would much rather be in a M1 over a T80, in 2000, you couldn't pry me out of it with a nuke, for at this point any armoured operation is a replay of War of the Worlds, and I'm one of the martians with a untouchable death ray.

[HorseSoldier]

It's worth remembering, too, that in T2K the Soviets (and some of their Warsaw Pact allies/clients) have been burning through reserves of ammunition and other materiel, not to mention personnel and AFV losses, on the Chinese front for over a year. Given that a lot of NATO planners didn't think the Soviet economy could sustain a high intensity fight in Europe for more than 3-4 months, it's probable that initial NATO successes were partly based on the .sovs having a lot of tools from their doctrinal tool box missing or at least depleted hamstringing their attempts to fight a defense or offense in accordance with their own doctrine. And they had China constantly pulling off units and supplies they needed for the fight against NATO in Europe and in their bid to deny Middle Eastern oil supplies to the West.

(By extension, as well, their later successes in rolling NATO back may have been as much about them getting their economy onto a total war kind of footing as well as NATO hitting their own logistical wall and tac nukes changing the equation. If they really got their economy onto that sort of WW2 footing for fighting a 2+ front sort of war, the nuclear exchange may actually have "saved" the regime from being Red Octobered by the masses in a replay of 1917 as the civilian sector of the economy collapsed entirely.)

[headquarters]

M1 Abrams vs T80 - cage match

I read all the various arguments - well put by all sides.

But I do feel that the question is rather " how big is the cage"

Meaning - do you factor in how many hours of maintenance and what if supply of dohicky no # 33xx33 M-42 runs out. And whar quality fuel can you use etc .

Airpower has been essential to the US sonce 1942, and it has had continous superiority barring a few months in Korea in the 50s.

It says something for our perception of this that it was world news when US forces had to abandone 1 - one - M1 Abrams wreck outside Baghdad in 2003 days before Saddam was ousted. On the other hand images of rows of T80s, T72s and what not lined up on the Highway of death all burned out has stuck in many peoples minds.

I think - if I may be so bold - that the M1 is superior given adequate support and back up., It is more finicky as all advanced technology is. The T80 lags behind in several aspects - fire control systems being one, but it is a simpler system that may last longer in field conditions w/o resupply.

All in my humble opinion of course. This thread has certainly inspired me to do some old school armoured fighting using the V.2.0 system again. The nerveracking element being of course the major damage results that kills the crew/party in one shot...

[Legbreaker]

But I do feel that the question is rather " how big is the cage"

And that's pretty much it in a nutshell isn't it. One on one, even three on one, the M1 (and Leopard, Challenger, and most of the other western tanks) easily trumps virtually anything the Pact can field.

But, in a combined arms or post nuke situation with minimal, or even no technical support beyond a quick wipe with an oily rag and swapping worn out parts for almost as worn out parts, the Pact is likely to have the advantage.

[Jason Weiser]

Likely, but not always. Remember in T2K, everybody's in the same logistical boat, and it all sucks. I would argue that there's a lot of dead and abandoned vehicles from both sides littering Poland and East Germany. 1 M1 or 1 T-80 is a pretty big deal now. Then again, if you can keep more than a dozen tanks period running in T2K, you're Donald Trump of T2K.

[The Rifleman]

But, in a combined arms or post nuke situation with minimal, or even no technical support beyond a quick wipe with an oily rag and swapping worn out parts for almost as worn out parts, the Pact is likely to have the advantage.

Very true statement! I'd say that early in the war, it didn't matter, there were spares on hand... then spares being made. I remember in the 90s, armor battalions had pretty big maintance platoons that even had presses and lathes to MAKE some parts. But I'd imagine that over time, they were pretty much all gone too. The electronics that run an M-1 were a lot more complex then that ones on an M60. I'd assume that the M60s have a lot more in common with a T80 than an M-1. The 2000 gunners probably have pop-eye forearms from all the hand cranking of turrets!

[dude_uk]

Does the Challenger 2 referee

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Likely, but not always. Remember in T2K, everybody's in the same logistical boat, and it all sucks. I would argue that there's a lot of dead and abandoned vehicles from both sides littering Poland and East Germany. 1 M1 or 1 T-80 is a pretty big deal now. Then again, if you can keep more than a dozen tanks period running in T2K, you're Donald Trump of T2K.

I apologize if this is ignorant but wasn't that part of the philosophy behind the Wiesel's engine design IIRC it uses readily-found/acquired automotive parts.