"M1A1 Abrams vs T-80" Topic

I am getting set to take the plunge into 6 mm Moderns and in fact I am running a scenario out the Ambush Alley supplement Cold War Gone Hot this week. Now for this game I only have M1A1 Abrams and some M60 Pattons taking on an entire company of T-72 and other Soviet circa 1987 vehicles. The original scenario called for the Soviets to have T-80s but you work with what you have.

Anyway in a recent conversation with a friend of mine who is a former tank jock (he was an army driver of Bradley's and served in Desert Storm) while singing the praises of the Abrams he was of the opinion that as of yet the Abrams has yet to really face an enemy MBT under competent hands, i.e., say a Russian crewed T-80. While I doubt we will become involved in any kind of direct exchange in Ukraine it does raise the What-If question of a current head to head of US Armored forces against current Russian armor and training.

So how would you compare the two MBTs in a mano a mano exchange? Have you gamed a cold war conflict or something more recent as in Ukraine?

Just a note … A Brad driver or anyone on a Bradley IFV … is Not a Tank jock … He's Mech Grunt or Mech Infantry … Being a former Mech Inf Cdr[M113], and knowing a lot of Tankers … we like to keep our distinctions … well distinct … Tankers routinely referred to us Infantry types back in the day, as The Walking Dead … Long before the comic or series … As well as a number of other "colorful" nicknames. My Mech Co., was routinely attached to a Tank Bn. So I had a lot of interface with Threadheads. Your Mech buddy is correct, a Russian crew would most likely be much better trained, etc. … and perform much better than an Iraqi crew … That being said, I have not gamed it …

the earlier T80s were a bit inferior to the M1A1 amusing similar level of crew training and maintenance. t-80Us were about on par with an M1A1. the maintenence and general tactic would usually favour the nato/US vehicles though.

by the late 80s, maintence was quite lax in hte soviet union, and the training and morale of the army was reportedly quite low(i have a friend who's dad was a engineer who frequently ended up helping with planning maintenance and consulting at factories in the soviet union proper. that's where i get the information to draw these conclusions)

The key factor is the crew and unit training. In the late 80s, US crews were training in the field and on the range regularly and when they weren't, they were on the simulators. The Soviet tanks remained in the motor pool most of the time due to lack of money for fuel, bullets and repair parts.

I can't remember where I read this. At some point back in the days/year or 2 just after the Desert Storm fight, I read about 23or so M1s being hit by tank fire and even taking damage from it but none of the hits made a crew kill or put the gun out of action (unless you count the ammo box getting hit and not having ammo except the round in the gun)one was even hit 5 times totally taking out the track on one side and still killed its attacker after the smoke and shock cleared.(crew realizing they were not dead and fired back)

Both are great series of tanks… The M1A1 has the lead in survivability. The T80bv was cheaper.

At very long range the T80bvs missile is a plus. At long to medium range, the M1A1's superior rate of fire and fire control give it an edge. Though the T80 can accurately crank the rounds downrange at an alarming rate.

The real kicker for the M1A1 is the thermal sight. In poor visibility, it can be a game winner.

Joe Collins

Legion 4 thanks for the correction of nomenclature and want to impart that my buddy never called himself a tanker. That is me saying that. He also talked about how quiet the Abrams is compared to the more noisy Brad.

I'll let you know how the game goes. Based upon Cold Steel's comments I now understand why the scenario gives the 11th ACR "Ironhorse" a Troop Quality and Morale of D10/D10 and the Soviets have D8/D8 respectively. Soviets also take initiative tests on a D6 while the US forces roll a D10.

Scenario breaks down as 4 x M1A1 s and 3 x M60 Pattons against

11 x T-72 and 3 x T-64

US forces also have one dedicated heavy artillery bombardment and two AT minefields. Terrain is a main highway leading to Frankfurt through the Fulda Gap. There are three large rough terrain hills and multiple dense forest clumps and a single farm house with barn and crops.

I'd be interested in how your game of FoF goes for that size of battle – I played my first game at a con this winter and had a lot of fun, but it was basically a platoon-plus per side, so I'm interested in how it would scale up to a company and work for 6mm too.

I haven't found an off-the-shelf modern rule set that really works for me, I've been converting Strike Legion sci-fi rules slowly, but after my FoF experience, am thinking of going to it if it works with more forces on the field.

Boy wundry x I ran a Tomorrow's War game at Historicon that featured on one side a full platoon of infantry plus four support weapons teams, 5 tanks, 3 APCs, 2 IFVs, a mech and off table artillery support. The other side had a full platoon plus 3 walker medium AFVs, a gunship and a super heavy walker mech. The game ran great and was fought to a conclusion within the four hour time limit. So yes the Ambush Alley/Force on Force game system can handle larger games. Now the scenario was helped by the fact that of the seven players three were familiar with the rules and two others had played an Ambush Alley game the day before and were at least up to speed on the system. By the end of turn two I just had to pull Fog of War cards and occasionally adjudicate whether something was in line of sight.

Cool, thanks Whitemanticore.

Legion 4 thanks for the correction of nomenclature and want to impart that my buddy never called himself a tanker. That is me saying that.

No problem Whitemanticore … We just like to be ID'd correctly ! Even though Grunts and Tankers work together routinely … Like Cold Steel is a Tanker and IIRC, his Tanks worked with my Bn in the ROK, in the mid-80s. He'd never wanted to be called a Grunt ! And vise versa ! As he and others noted, for Tankers or Grunts is good training at all levels, etc., makes all the difference … Plus good maintenance procedures, logistics, etc. … You have to cater to the Iron Monsters or you're walking …

I was a M1 Tanker for 12 years and loved it. Fought in Desert Storm and took out plenty of Iraqi tanks, some crewless and some not. The Iraqis really didn't put up much of a fight and the ones that did had no fire control discipline. They would fire their main guns and the rounds would look like they were shooting at helicopters instead of us. I did see a T-55 shoot a Bradley in the rear and my wingman shot the T-55. The Bradley burned, but the crew made it out, but was wounded. The T-55 crew was dead except for one guy, but he died struggling to get out before the ammo blew.

I think in a head to head fight against the Russians you have to factor in more things than just the tanks and crews. Sure Americans tankers think we are the best, but when was the last time American tankers had to sit in holes as artillery pounded their positions, stripping away all their external mounted equipment? Same goes for the Russians. When was the last time tankers from both sides were in a high intensity conflict? I think those factors are important also. It is cool to say, "Yeah, I fought in a tank in Iraq", but truthfully, I have never faced down Russian artillery pounding my position for a half hour then having to face a T-80 regiment bearing down on me as I try to replace my sheared off antennaes or have to fight my tank in degraded mode because my dog house (tankers know what that is) has been ripped off by shrapnel.