Martin From Canada | 18 Nov 2013 12:02 a.m. PST |
PDF link A declassified report (As of 2004) about the relative assumed capabilities in for WARPAC and US tanks. It does make some interesting reading in light of the developments in the past 30 years
Cheers, Martin from Canada |
britishlinescarlet2 | 18 Nov 2013 12:23 a.m. PST |
|
Rudi the german | 18 Nov 2013 3:34 a.m. PST |
|
Barin1 | 18 Nov 2013 5:16 a.m. PST |
interesting
I wonder if they put their true thoughts on the subject into this work, or it was made to scare the command into giving better financing for tanks and AT weapons ;) |
ArmymenRGreat | 18 Nov 2013 6:01 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Martin. I skimmed it and picked up a couple points: 1. WP is "better" because of the sheer numbers 2. Continuous improvement (many versions) is better than jumps in technology (fewer versions) since WP is more likely to be ahead in technology at any given point in time Additionally, it seldom addresses any of the intangibles (Soviet personnel carriers are notorious for beating up the occupants, it's a logistics nightmare supplying parts/ammo for so many versions, etc., etc.). I suspect (like Barin1), that it's report meant to scare people, but it is quite fascinating. Thanks again! |
GROSSMAN | 18 Nov 2013 7:48 a.m. PST |
I found one line amusing speaking of the 4:1 odds against NATO "Hitlers tanks nearly defeated the Russian army with a 4:1 ratio against them" Since when does "nearly" count in war? I think we would have gotten flattened, but there wouldn't be much left of the Russian army. |
darthfozzywig | 18 Nov 2013 8:00 a.m. PST |
LOL Grossman. Yeah, being an "also ran" with Hitler as company isn't an inspiring goal. |
Major Mike | 18 Nov 2013 9:52 a.m. PST |
The document was produced during a recession when the funding for the services had been cut after the end of the Vietnam War. Heavily favors the 10 foot tall Soviet. Many of the points are valid concerns the leaders had about the then current tank in the US inventory. The 1973 Yom Kipper War showed the vunerabilities of the M-60 tank. Remember, at this time the M-1 is just the XM-1. The report is probably meant to speed it's procurement. I notice there is very little, if any, mention of the stop-gap fielding of the M-60a3 to help address deficencies until the fielding of the M-1. Again, leads me to believe its purpose is to speed up procurement of the M-1. |
darthfozzywig | 18 Nov 2013 10:01 a.m. PST |
Heavily favors the 10 foot tall Soviet. Only because that's the TRUTH. Those guys were giants. The images prove it:
|
Lion in the Stars | 18 Nov 2013 11:31 a.m. PST |
Interesting to see all the redacted portions. Part of what was redacted was some classification markings, but there are whole paragraphs missing. |
Martin From Canada | 18 Nov 2013 5:15 p.m. PST |
My totally uninformed guess is that most of the redacted portions of the text are sources and methods that could be embarrassing today (ie. defections, back channel communications
) |
lkmjbc3 | 18 Nov 2013 9:13 p.m. PST |
Unfortunately, it isn't just scare tactics. It is correct. We would have had a very rough time with the Soviets till about 1985. The M60A3 was a great gun platform. To bad any Soviet front line round would have killed it at any range. It would have taken 3 or 4 hits from our guns to do the same. Match the M60A1 vs the T64B
ugly. Match the M113 vs the BMP1
Ugly. Don't bring up artillery. Joe Collins |
Martin Rapier | 19 Nov 2013 5:19 a.m. PST |
"To bad any Soviet front line round would have killed it at any range." Yes, I always used to groan when I got a platoon of M60s in support when playing M1 Tank Platoon. Those guys were just flaming wrecks within minutes of contact unless you made very careful use of reverse slopes. OTOH using terrain well is what training and tactics is all about. Relying on thick armour to defeat the enemy is probably a poor approach, you shouldn't be getting shot at in the first place. |
Legion 4 | 19 Nov 2013 8:13 a.m. PST |
Yes, the US's 2nd rate armored vehicles at the time, was one reason for the A-10, upgraded AH1's and eventually the AH-64 and M1
I was an active duty Grunt officer, '79-'90
Commanded an M113 Mech Co.
I dismounted as often as the terrain and situation would allow it
However, IIRC , the M60A3 had better optics than any USSR MBT
and allowed the M60A3 to effectively engage at like 2500m before a USSR MBT could do similarly at 1500m
My Mech Co. was frequently attached to an Armor Bn, which had 3 M60 Cos. and 1 M1IP Co.
the tankers were pretty confident. And since I had been a Bn S3 Air in the 101 previously, I hoped that I or someone at the Tank Bn TOC could call-in Gunships and or CAS
Plus I planned to load up my M113s with as many M47 Dragons and LAWs as I could get/fit
As I only had 2 ITVs organic to my Co. And hoped an ITV Plt or two from our Echo Co. was near by too
Since I also had been a Rifle Plt Ldr in the 101 as an LT, if my Co. had to, we'd dismount in heavily wooded closed terrain. And do AT ambushes and fade into the woods E&Eing from the remaining Russkies
Charlie style
|
Skarper | 19 Nov 2013 8:37 a.m. PST |
I spent a lot of time playing NATO/WARPAC Central Front games in the 1990s. Even then it was hard to get data – mostly it seemed made up. There's a lot more out there now and quite a lot contradicts what we had to work with then. My guess is the Soviets were massively exaggerated at every opportunity in order to get funding for new weapons and more forces. They still had a significant edge though because the NATO forces were really quite weak. But I don't think there was ever much chance of a shooting war breaking out. The Soviets just had nothing to gain by attacking. So the laugh is on the impoverished tax payers who funded rearmament that was never really necessary. I love the 'cool' tanks and aircraft as much as the next wargamer but I can't help wishing our feckless leaders hadn't fallen for it all. |
ancientsgamer | 19 Nov 2013 12:01 p.m. PST |
When father was in charge of the tank testing program that lead to the specifications of the M-1 at West Fort Hood, TX TCATA. I can assure you, we were frightened for a reason. As stated above, the gun alone wasn't the issue with the M-60. As to exaggeration of the USSR, sure I suppose, but what was there and what they had was scary enough at half the numbers. Our tanks were no match for theirs. However, as rightly pointed out above, we don't rely solely on tanks. WWII is a prime example, we were terribly outgunned but still won. Now flip this around and have the USSR outnumbering us and with better guns/tanks and it is quite frightening. We sure have a lot of armchair hindsight generals here :-) What is ironic is that most that poo-poo the threats were real, are in denial. As to whether we would have gone to war, there are documents out there that show we were close on a handful of occasions. I think many assume that just because we were so dominant on the ground during both Gulf Wars, that the same would have happened during the Cold War. Before the M-1, we were very much outclassed and frankly we were until the M-1A because of having the inadequate 105MM main gun. I wouldn't consider winning the Cold War a waste of funding. As a matter of fact 10X the money spent would have been worth the price. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Nov 2013 12:04 p.m. PST |
My guess is the Soviets were massively exaggerated at every opportunity in order to get funding for new weapons and more forces. They still had a significant edge though because the NATO forces were really quite weak. And I suspect that Barin1 would tell us that the American/NATO threat was vastly exaggerated to get funding for new weapons and more forces. But this one doesn't seem to be massively exaggerated in favor of the Russkies, or if it is, it's very subtle forms of exaggeration. The only one that immediately jumps to mind is the comment about T64 production. IIRC, the T64s started out with pretty significant production but rapidly tapered off. The comment mentions that in one month, 100 brand-new T64s had been delivered, but from what wikipedia says, that was the single big surge of T64s and after that there was a company here and there. Not the total re-armament of entire divisions like the report implies. |
(Jake Collins of NZ 2) | 19 Nov 2013 12:11 p.m. PST |
Remember that the Soviets (via the East Germans) also had the entire V Corps TDP in the early 1980s. I'm pretty sure that post-Cold War those who know have indicated that it is the real TDP and not a plant. Hit-and-fade tactics not so effective if the enemy knows where your next line of resistance might be. |
Milites | 19 Nov 2013 2:32 p.m. PST |
Firstly, the Soviets never tried to emulate NATO's qualitative edge, in fact trying to would have undermined their strategy. They only used a technological solution when it was needed to stop NATO countering their numerical supremacy. The Soviets decisive edge, IMHO, was their understanding of doctrine, the much misquoted operational art. In this, the Marxist subjugation of the individual, for the sake of the collective, drove their thinking. Conversely, NATO's tendency for individuation, focusing on the tactical not the operational or strategic, fixating on kill ratios and the individual performance of weapon system v's weapon system, would have paradoxically negated their superiority. Later NATO doctrine, suggesting a more aggressive response to any attack and leveraging the technological edge, was just as important as any new sexy kit. |